Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railway Safety

Mr.Gunnel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in operational practice on matters affecting railway safety have taken place since 1 April as a result of the Railways Act 1993.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Railtrack has operational responsibility for a new safety regime which will ensure that the already high standard of safety on the railways is maintained and improved.

Mr. Gunnell: Have not there already been changes? Before privatisation, drivers went to a training school and the central fund that provided that training has now been abolished. Before privatisation, when an incident occurred, the focus of the investigation was on finding the cause of the accident and learning from it. Trade union observers were present. Now the focus of the inquiry will be on how to apportion blame and costs among the different companies involved—Railtrack, the station owners and the operating companies. Is not it inevitable that increased bureaucracy will lead to less safety?

Mr. Freeman: Absolutely not. The safety of the railways, which has been the pre-eminent concern of the British Railways Board in recent years, will continue. A privatised railway will be as safe as, if not safer than, a publicly owned railway. As for the investigation of accidents, there will be no change. Her Majesty's inspectorate will continue to focus on the cause of each accident, not initially on seeking to apportion blame.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my rail-travelling constituents will expect nothing less than that the interests of safety will be paramount in the new arrangements of British Rail? Can he assure me and my constituents that sufficient provision will be made for infrastructure investment in British Rail once Railtrack is really operational? It is important that we deal with the problems of signal failure and the like in a manner that enables people to travel to and from work reliably.

Mr. Freeman: As a result of the reforms, Railtrack's investment budget, which will be higher this year than for comparable types of investment last year by British Rail, will be protected by its own depreciation flow. Therefore, it will generate sufficient funds to maintain a high level of investment in the infrastructure. We expect that to be £500 million in the existing railway this year, £600 million next year and £750 million the year after.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that Opposition Members welcome hearing his Back Benchers already begging for mercy from the implications of rail privatisation, which, of course, played a significant part in the humilation of the Tory party last Thursday? Does he accept that the biggest threat to rail safety is the wanton breaking up of experienced teams of railway personnel? How does he defend the fact that £303 million of taxpayers' money—almost half the amount needed for the refurbishment of the entire west coast main line—has been spent not on railways but on redundancy and early retirement payments to more than 13,000 railway workers? Instead of breaking up, contractorising and fragmenting the railways, will the Minister put that kind of money into


investment in the railways, which is threatened and undermined by the procedure that he is going through at the moment?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has never understood the difference between the wisdom of investing in infrastructure and improving the productivity of the railways. The reduction of 13,000 in the staff of British Railways, with no effect at all on the operational efficiency of the railways, is a good investment.

Air Agreement

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the United States/United Kingdom bilateral air agreements relating to the separation of negotiations for routes into London Heathrow and regional gateways.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I have received representations on a number of issues relating to the bilateral negotiations and continue to try to get the talks restarted.

Mr. Banks: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his patience—never mind his tenacity—in the difficult negotiations between the two countries, may I ask him to assure the House that, given the environmental and other reasons why it will be difficult to find many extra take-off and landing slots at London's Heathrow airport, he will set about trying to agree an open skies policy with the United States Government to allow more flights across the Atlantic to regional airports in the United Kingdom?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am keen to get the talks restarted—it was not us who broke them off. I agree that there are real constraints at Heathrow. We are trying to persuade the United States Government—with increasing success, because the arguments are being recognised—that there is not unlimited access to Heathrow. I am also keen to encourage the expansion of regional airports and that is why last December we proposed to the United States Government opening all our regional airports at the first stage.

Mr. Olner: The Secretary of State's record seems to have stuck. I remember that question being asked time and again at Question Time. It is of vital importance to the regional airports, such as Birmingham, that more transatlantic routes to America are provided. Will he please take action quickly and stop stalling on Heathrow and Gatwick, because they are the main reason why the talks, which are very important for regional airports, are being blocked?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not stuck and I am not just repeating the arguments. I am trying to get the talks restarted and have been seeking a number of ways to do so. I made further proposals to the United States Government in relation to the recent Delta-Virgin code-sharing arrangement, suggesting that we should take advantage of that deal to have some interim agreements to get the talks going again and I included proposals for the regional airports.

Mr. Haselhurst: Even if my right hon. Friend made his offer of unrestricted access to the regional airports and Stansted unconditional, has he any cause for believing that the United States Administration would accept that offer?

Mr. MacGergor: The problem is the United States Government have not accepted our offers in relation to Stansted and the regional airports, as my hon. Friend knows. It is important that all interests—the airlines and the airports—are involved in the negotiations. We would not fulfil our liberal objectives if we agreed to a deal that would allow United States airlines to exploit their unfair competitive advantage, while giving United Kingdom airlines nothing in return and driving them out of the market. That is the problem and that is why I wanted a balanced deal. I assure my hon. Friend that that deal very much includes giving open access to the regional airports and Stansted as quickly as we can get a positive and constructive response from the other side.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's commitment to diversification through regional airports and the fact that Belfast international airport was one of those that recently got an add-on licence from America, through to Riga. May we urge the right hon. Gentleman to continue his efforts—we will back him—to ensure that British companies have the same rights as American companies?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

Escalators (London Underground)

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the recommendation of the Fennell inquiry to replace all the wooden escalators on the London underground to be implemented.

The minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): London Underground has replaced the timber skirtings, balustrades and advertisement panels on all its escalators with non-combustible materials. Its programme for replacing wooden treads and risers is still in progress and, with the support of the fire authority, London Underground has asked the Home Secretary to amend the relevant regulations in order to permit fire authorities to grant exemptions in respect of wooden treads and risers beyond 1 January 1996.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that, given that the Fennell inquiry found out that a lit cigarette on a wooden escalator started the King's Cross fire and recommended that wooden treads be urgently removed, the Government's attitude is one of utter complacency towards the travelling public in London?

Mr. Norris: No. The installation of sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment and improved escalator cleaning and inspection procedures are the important elements in ensuring that a tragedy like King's Cross does not recur. I stress that the relevant fire authorities have supported London Underground in its application to the Home Office to ensure that the programme is carried out, but in an appropriate time scale.

Mr. John Marshall: How much has London Underground spent on safety since the publication of the Fennell report? How many recommendations were in that report and how many of them have been implemented by London Underground since the report was published?

Mr. Norris: London Underground has spent £250 million on safety since King's Cross. There were 127 recommendations in the Fennell report, of which 114 have already been implemented.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that London transport is the subject which most exercises Londoners—according to replies sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment—and given that Ministers share the concern to maximise investment, the number of users, and safety, will the Minister seriously consider consulting the using public of London before fixing the amount of money to be raised next year, so that choices about investment can be made by the people rather than just by the Government?

Mr. Norris: No. It is appropriate that the investment priorities for the underground should be determined by London Underground in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the money that has been spent on safety. Indeed, together with my hon. Friend I have been to see the safety measures implemented at Greenford station and elsewhere. We are grateful for them. Will my hon. Friend consider a down escalator—no, I mean an up escalator—at Greenford station, as that is greatly needed?

Mr. Norris: Up or down, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that 38 escalators still have wooden treads and risers? Does he recall that one of the important recommendations in the Fennell report was that replacement of wooden risers should be urgently sought because of the discovery of the trench effect? Did not the former Secretary of State for Transport promise in November 1988 that London Transport had been asked to implement that recommendation urgently? Why, five and a half years later, is the Department trying to renege on that undertaking? Is not it purely because the Government have cut London Transport's investment programme by £1 billion compared with what was promised at the last election? When will the Government recognise that they cannot jeopardise public safety in order to make cuts in London Transport's funding?

Mr. Norris: That is not good enough. First, the rate of replacement for escalators should be about six a year. If the rate were increased, it would impose intolerable congestion on the whole system—not something which would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, independent analysis has concluded that replacing the treads and risers in advance of their normal replacement would be very bad value for money and would offer very little compared with the other items that I mentioned, such as sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment, better inspection under escalators and so on. That is the way to do these things. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to spread fear and alarm where there is absolutely no cause for them.

A12

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is intending to take to improve safety on the A12.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Work will start on the Witham bypass section at the end of June. I have asked the Highways Agency to bring forward work on the Feering to Marks Tey safety fence improvements, which will now start this year.

Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that it is now nine months since my constituent, Cheryl Franklin, a 27-year-old bride on her way to her honeymoon, was killed as a result of her car crossing the central reservation? Does he accept that it is essential that that work should go ahead as soon as possible if we are to avoid similar tragedies?

Mr. Key: Yes, I am aware of that case due to the diligence of my hon. Friend, who has made representations to me, the campaign of the Colchester Evening Gazette and the letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from Her Majesty's coroner for the county of Essex. It has taken a number of months to commission work from our agents, Essex county council. It has completed its work, which had to be evaluated, and, as I have just announced, we are proceeding with all speed.

Ms. Walley: When will the Government realise that if they talk about safety, they must talk about safety with integrity? We have just heard the Government's response to the Fennell report and now we have heard the Government's response to road safety, exactly at the same time as they are privatising the Transport Research Laboratory. Where is the Government's long-term vision and when—

Madem Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is on the wrong question, but it appears that the Minister is able to give a reply.

Mr. Key: In relation to safety on the A12 and safety policy, we do not count the pennies when it comes to safety. That is exactly why our road safety scheme budget was effectively ring-fenced in this financial year, so there was no reduction in it. That, too, is why we shall continue to improve road safety by engineering better roads.

Roads Programme

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities in the roads programme for the west midlands.

Mr. MacGregor: The priorities are outlined in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review", which I announced to the House on 30 March.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition not only in north Warwickshire but throughout Staffordshire to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road? It is regarded as unnecessary, because it will not cure the congestion problems on the M6, and environmentally destructive because such orbital roads generate more traffic, which further damage the environment. That is why the proposal is opposed by large sections of the community throughout my area.

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. The forthcoming public inquiry will allow all representations to be heard by an independent inspector. That is the way to proceed with the scheme. The hon.


Gentleman will also know that a comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed scheme is described in the environmental statement.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I recognise the importance of prioritising the road programme, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern that has been expressed in my constituency, in particular about the decision to make the Kidderminster-Blakedown and Hagley bypass one of the lowest priorities? Is he aware that it is supported by the local district councils and the chambers of commerce? Is he also aware that my constituents would like him to reconsider his decision and give that scheme the priority that it deserves?

Mr. MacGregor: Contrary to what Opposition Members may say, I know that there is a great demand for our road programme and that is why we are continuing with a major programme. Alas, there are so many requests from around the country that it is necessary to prioritise. Despite the high level of road building in which we are engaged, it is not possible to build all the roads at once or even within the next five or six years. That is why it has been necessary to say that some schemes will be delayed. The scheme to which my hon. Friend referred is connected with the western orbital route. I assure him that all schemes in the longer-term programme are secure and will go ahead as we continue to complete the schemes ahead of them.

Rail Reforms

Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what opportunity for non-transport industries will be created by the rail reforms.

Mr. Freeman: A wide spectrum of opportunities for non-transport industries will be created by the Government's rail reforms, including, for example, bidding for the infrastructure service units and British Rail Telecoms and developing the commercial potential at some of our larger stations.

Mr. Stephen: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had the good fortune to be a Industry and Parliament Trust fellow with British Rail for the past year. Will he accept from me that a positive attitude exists throughout the industry to the introduction of private sector capital and management techniques, not least among the men and women who maintain the track and signal infrastructure? Can he give a suggestion of the timetable for the restructuring of British Rail infrastructure services?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a widespread enthusiasm among the staff of British Rail—[Interruption.] There is a widespread enthusiasm for our reforms among those people who look forward positively to developing a better rail system. If hon. Gentlemen are not aware of that, I will introduce them to some of the management of British Rail. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend.
On the infrastructure units, I expect that the process of sale will commence at the beginning of the next financial year and will be concluded by Easter 1996.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that there is every reason why private consultants should be delighted with the opportunities offered by British Rail, because they are costing the taxpayer £344 million and not one single

penny is going to improving either the rail structure or jobs? What is happening with those people who are flying round in helicopters, and how can we obtain some value for money from those people who are publishing articles calling it a "gravy train"?

Mr. Freeman: On privatisation costs, the Government do not recognise the type of figures that the Opposition have been speaking about—£300 million, £400 million, £500 million and £600 million. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been including the cost of redundancies of more than £300 million. That would have occurred anyway and improved the efficiency of British railways.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided by the rail reforms will be enormously enhanced by the success of the channel tunnel, which he, the Secretary of State and many other Conservative colleagues enjoyed, which was built as a result of the success of private sector finance, and which would never have been built had we followed the transport policies of the Labour party?

Mr. Freeman: It was the Labour party which cancelled the channel tunnel project in the 1970s. It is under the present Government that private sector capital has brought off a major engineering feat.

Mr. Dobson: Is not the Minister being a trifle modest in his list of non-transport industries that have benefited from rail privatisation? Has not between £250 million and £300 million of taxpayers' and passengers' money been paid out by his Department or British Rail to merchant bankers, management consultants, lawyers, accountants, public relations advisers and even—God help us—parliamentary consultants?

Mr. Freeman: The truth is that British Rail and Railtrack, the Department of Transport, the Office of Rail Passenger Franchising and the regulator have spent money well on preparing the railway industry for privatisation. Last year, British Rail and Railtrack spent about £50 million together. That is 1.5 per cent, of the turnover of British Rail and it is money well spent.

A66

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A66.

Mr. Key: There are nine schemes in the road programme to improve the A66, with an estimated value of £40 million.

Mr. Devlin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and also for the replies to my written questions showing that more than half the movements along the A66 are those of commercial traffic. Is he aware of the high priority that is attached to the modernisation and improvement of the A66 trans-Pennine route by the Teesside chamber of commerce and other commercial organisations in the north-east of England, which regard it as one of the components of enormous economic expansion in the future? In that light, will he give the further improvement of the road his greater consideration in the future?

Mr. Key: I am second to none in my admiration for the progress on Teesside and my hon. Friend has kept me well


informed of that and lobbied hard on behalf of the business community in his constituency. There is, however, another side to the argument. From my position, with a national perspective, I have also to bear in mind the pressures from elsewhere in the north—for example, to upgrade the A69.

Traffic Calming

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that traffic-calming schemes have reduced accidents in urban areas.

Mr. Key: Traffic calming has reduced accidents in 20 mph zones by as much as 70 per cent, and has been particularly effective in reducing accidents to child pedestrians and cyclists.

Mr. Garnier: The most effective and popular traffic-calming scheme in Market Harborough is the completion of the A1-M1 link, but the benefits of the traffic-calming scheme currently being undertaken within Market Harborough are not widely understood. Will my hon. Friend use all his powers to ensure that the disadvantages of the scheme are fully mitigated by its benefits?

Mr. Key: Yes. I shall also bear in mind the fact that work starts today on a traffic-calming scheme on a length of wide road—Fairfield road—in my hon. Friend's constituency. Vociferous opposition has been expressed in respect of work in zone 3—Fairfield road, Logan street—so we have modified the scheme in consultation with the local highway authority. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the best future for traffic calming in Market Harborough lies in the completion of the A14—the A1-M1 link—which will be opened next month, and in the successful completion of the bypass demonstration project. Market Harborough is one of only six towns that have been part of an experiment to ensure that, when towns are bypassed and traffic flows reduced by up to 70 per cent., the towns' centres return to the life that they knew in the past, and that wide, unattractive roads do not go through the middle of our cities.

Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that, precisely when he was praising sleeping policemen, the Minister for Transport in London was busy denigrating them? Will he hold a referendum on the matter?

Mr. Key: No. I have no intention of having a referendum on that matter. Good heavens, if we had a referendum those in favour of road improvement might win the argument!

Mr. Dunn: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to traffic-calming measures, the proper working and maintenance of motor cars is essential? Does he agree that many of our constituents could not afford to maintain their motor cars if they faced a 50p increase in the price of petrol as suggested by the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The management of our roads includes creating, as far as possible, a pollution-free environment. That is being achieved because motor cars are becoming much cleaner and because of our commitment to the Rio arrangements and increasing the price of fuel. Given that cars will be much more efficient, that need not bear down on less-affluent members of the community.

Mr. Pike: I recognise the impact on accidents to which the Minister referred in his original response, and the fact that most traffic-calming schemes cost relatively little. But why does not the Minister provide local authorities such as Lancashire with enough resources to carry out all the traffic-calming schemes that they wish to introduce this year?

Mr. Key: We have maintained the money for traffic-calming schemes at £50 million and it is entirely open to local authorities to prioritise spending in these areas. This year, we have introduced for the first time a package approach to local authority joint funding with the Department of Transport. That means that local authorities have much more flexibility to design overall transport packages including road, rail, bus, cycle, and pedestrianisation features. That is a sensible and practical way forward.

Airlines (Competition)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to improve competition among airlines operating (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) within Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government strongly support a liberal market in aviation. The United Kingdom led the way in developing a competitive domestic market and in the creation of the European Union single market and open skies in Europe policy. I hope that that will be extended to the full European Economic Area later this year.

Mr. Steen: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking on Air France and winning for British airlines in Orly. Will he now correct the balance for the few remaining scheduled British airlines so that they do not go the way of British Caledonian, Dan Air, Brymon, Birmingham Executive and British Island Airways, which have either gone to the wall or have been taken over by British Airways? Although British Airways has a successful track record, privatisation has given the company an over-dominant position in this country and Europe.

Mr. MacGregor: If the latter part of my hon. Friend's question refers to anti-competitive behaviour, the Office of Fair Trading has powers to investigate such allegations. I am grateful to him for his opening remarks. The outcome of the Commission's deliberations on the London to Paris, Orly air route was crucial because it was one of the first tests of the implementation of the single market. Another is that air fares are coming down. I am pleased about the Commission's response and grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the part that I played in pressing for that. It will help other airlines and will be a great help to British Midland. My hon. Friend will have noted that, from next Monday, Air UK will operate six flights a day from Stansted to Orly.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Secretary of State really wants to take on Air France, should not he do so in respect of its monopoly on flights to Strasbourg? The present position is clearly thoroughly unsatisfactory: the airline charges enormous fares because it knows that most people who go to Strasbourg will not be paying their own fares.
As for fares coming down, when can we expect to pay fares in Europe that are comparable with those in the United States?

Mr. MacGregor: Some fares in the European Union are coming down as a result of the single aviation package. In fact, British airlines have led the way in bringing those fares down and others have had to follow suit. The important thing is to have competition on individual routes to ensure that that happens. We are pursuing that objective as well—which is why the question of the London to Orly route is important, as is that of flights from Orly to Toulouse and Marseilles. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get in touch with me about Strasbourg, I will certainly ensure that it is examined; but I do not think that it has yet been drawn to the Commission's attention.

Northern Line

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has to report on measures to improve the service offered by the Northern line.

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 March that London Underground would be holding a competition for the supply of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. This competition is now under way, and should be completed by the autumn.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will know of the pressure put on the Government by hon. Members on both sides of the House for an improvement in the Northern line. My constituency contains the Morden depot and two stations. I welcome the initiative for private sector involvement in the line. Will my hon. Friend give me some idea of the timing of the tenders and assure me that our constituents can look forward to a Northern line that can provide a service that is appropriate to the next century?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my right hon. Friend's initiative. I hope that we may be in a position to look at the tenders before the end of the year. The initiative will significantly increase the rate at which improvements in the line can be made. As my hon. Friend implied, the station improvements in his constituency are a separate item in the budget; those stations will undergo a thorough refurbishment in the next two years.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that it is the possibility of losing a competition that causes my constituents concern—not least in the light of a recent incident at Hampstead tube station, when the elevator had to be manually winched 181 ft to the surface? Will he consider sympathetically the call for a safety inquiry from my constituent Mrs. Jenny Woodley, whose son—as he knows—was tragically lost in an accident on the underground? That is desirable not least because manning levels throughout the system seem to be falling.

Mr. Norris: I am very ready to consider any representation from the hon. Lady in regard to an individual constituency case, and I will happily do so in this instance.
I found the hon. Lady's original question rather confusing. Is she saying that she does not welcome an initiative that is likely to deliver modern, safe and reliable

Northern line trains several years earlier than they would otherwise be available? I believe that the vast majority of her constituents will welcome this imaginative initiative which is designed to accelerate a pace of investment that is already four times as great under the present Government as it was at any time under the stewardship of her party.

Resignalling

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the resignalling of the Liverpool Street to Chelmsford line to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: Resignalling is expected to be completed as far as Chelmsford by late 1995, and Colchester by Easter 1997.

Mr. Burns: That announcement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, because the dates are earlier than was originally anticipated. Given that it comes on top of the complete rebuilding of Chelmsford station over the past eight years, the introduction of new rolling stock on the line and the improved journey times, will not the resignalling ensure a better, more consistent service for my constituents who travel to work each day via Liverpool street?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend might find it interesting to know that punctuality on the Great Eastern line has been 91.3 per cent. over the past four weeks, which compares with the standard set by the passengers charter of 88 per cent.—a creditable performance by British Rail.

East London Line

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expedite the development of the options for the southern extension to the East London line.

Mr. Norris: Responsibility for assessing the options for the southern extension to the East London line, and the time scale for that assessment, rest with London Underground Ltd.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he liaise with his officials to ensure that London Underground examines all the options for the extension of the East London line, beyond the modest proposal to go to East Dulwich? In particular, will they examine the London borough of Lewisham's proposal for a circular route involving track sharing with Railtrack, through Crystal Palace and back to New Cross Gate—not only to secure the future of New Cross Gate but to bring to a part of south London that is wholly deprived of an underground service a much-needed facility?

Mr. Norris: I am happy to arrange for any examination that is not already being done to take place, because I agree that there is scope, in the southern works on the East London line extension, for a real enhancement of the system at relatively modest cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Research Funding

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will pay an official visit to the research councils in Swindon to discuss future funding.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I held a meeting last week with chairmen and the chief executives of the research councils and I expect to visit Swindon in July.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in general principle and as far as possible, resources should be concentrated on scientific research at the sharp end? Is he happy with the fact that as much as £3.5 million a year is being withheld by his Office for centralised activities such as the technology foresight programme?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can reassure my hon. Friend. First, the cost of the foresight exercise is about £2 million. Secondly, the costs will come from the running costs of my Department, not from the science base, which is protected. I agree that the money should go to science, which is why the new Director General of Research Councils recently gained £7.5 million in efficiency savings from the research councils to plough back into front-line science.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor aware of the danger of the erosion of support for the science base because of the need to support teaching that should be done at undergraduate level and financed by the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department for Education?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. As he knows, we have put out a consultation paper about potential changes in postgraduate teaching. There is a growth of four-year courses in some of our science and engineering schools; some of that growth is welcome, but it needs close analysis to compare its output with that of other routes.

Civil Servants

Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants across the Union.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I shall resist the temptation to guess who the counterparts of the Duchy of Lancaster in the European Union are, but I have not discussed with them initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants in the Union.

Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that the numbers of civil servants will be decreased in the European Community as long as there emerge from Brussels daft and expensive directives such as the one being enforced in the Palace of Westminster, under which all filing cabinets will be scrapped this summer because they do not contain anti-tilt mechanisms? What will the cost to the nation be if all our filing cabinets have to be scrapped? Is not that a crazy example of these daft directives?

Mr. Davis: I shall also resist the idea of a European anti-tilt mechanism. The European Commission produced a report on subsidiarity which proposed a reduction of 25 per cent. in the quantity of legislation and regulation emerging from Europe. The directive to which my hon. Friend referred may be a good candidate for that.

Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the number of civil servants in the European Union be reduced if every man and his dog, in the Tory Government and on the Tory Back Benches alike, is calling for God knows how many different varieties of referendum? And while we are about it, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to tell us where he stands on the issue?

Mr. Davis: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no, I certainly shall not, but I have no doubt where he stands on the issue of a referendum.

Public Services

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives his Department has launched to obtain the best value for money from public services.

Mr. Waldegrave: My Department co-ordinates a range of initiatives under the banner of the citizens charter that help to improve value for money in the delivery of public services. These include the "Competing for Quality" programme and "next steps", as well as the charter initiative itself. As the citizens charter second report announced, £135 million of savings have been achieved under the "Competing for Quality" programme.

Mr. Devlin: In evaluating the value-for-money initiatives that he is taking, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the home civil service has an unenviable reputation throughout the world for its objectivity and lack of corruption? Will he ensure that those values are enshrined in any "next steps" agencies that he establishes?

Mr. Enright: Unenviable?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend meant to say an enviable record, in which case all hon. Members would agree with him that that is so. My hon. Friend is right that the maintenance of those standards, which are envied worldwide, is a central objective of policy in the changes that we are making and have made in the civil service in the past 10 years.

Mr. Winnick: Is not it clear that this Government provide the worst possible value for money? Did not the electorate make it clear last week that they considered that the Government were totally discredited and divided and that the sooner they went, the better?

Mr. Waldegrave: In the time that I have been here—since 1979—I have heard the hon. Gentleman make similar remarks, usually about two years before elections that we win.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Should not we ensure in the European parliamentary elections that the socialists are defeated so that the European Parliament can work with this Government to ensure that we maintain good public services and the minimum number of civil servants?

Mr. Waldegrave: All the efficiency gains made in both British Government and British industry would be lost as a result of the centralising tendencies that both Opposition parties would reinforce in the European Community.

Mr. Meacher: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that market testing of public services is his flagship project; as he has estimated, although he has never substantiated it, that it achieves savings of £100 million a year; and as the Cabinet Office efficiency unit has officially estimated the cost of consultancies at £565 million last year, with savings of a mere £10 million, should not he do what any chief executive would do if his pet project turned into a field day for waste and corruption—namely, resign—or is the pay-back to the Tory party from those jobs for the boys such that even he can cling to office, like the Prime Minister?

Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the hon. Member has completely confused himself, but he will not confuse the House. Savings of about £135 million have been achieved by market testing. The annualised cost of consultants is probably about £1 million. The total cost of consultants is about £10 million. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is a distinguished management consultant and used to work for Inbucon, so perhaps he will be able to put his hon. Friend right on some of these matters.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessments have been made of the extent of the changes in efficiency and quality of public services as a result of the application of the citizens charter.

Mr. David Davis: The citizens charter second report, published in March, reported fully on improvements in efficiency and quality in public services since the launch of the citizens charter. Individual services also assess improvements and publish their performance results.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the total cost of the citizens charter programme amounts to less than 2p per family per week? Does he agree that that represents excellent value, given the improvement in services and the pressure for improvement in public services? Is not that the reason why overseas countries are now using our citizen charters as an example of the way in which they may exert pressure for an improvement in public services?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. More than 30 countries—France, North America and many others—have come to see or have considered our experiences in this matter. He is right to say that there has been a considerable improvement in services. One example that leaps to mind arose from the league tables for schools, which led to significant improvements for a number of schools in the past few years.

Mr. Barnes: What changes are there in efficiency and quality as a result of the scrapping of the charterline experiment in the east midlands? How much did that wasteful experiment cost and should not the money have been used for other purposes, such as supply to local authorities in the area to enable them to inform people of the services that they provide?

Mr. Davis: As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, the majority of the money that was spent on charterline went into the development and research phase. That was used to create a database and to provide information for a number of other services. For example, the Royal Mail is producing a directory of all homes and services in the country at no cost to the taxpayer; the BBC will have a telephone helpline; and directories such as the British Telecom and Thomson directories will also use the information. That is all for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Departmental Information

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the House will receive information about decisions on appeals against a Department's refusal to make information available.

Mr. Waldegrave: The parliamentary ombudsman will keep the House informed of his findings when investigating complaints under the code of practice.

Mr. Bottomley: The House and the country will understand that using the parliamentary ombudsman as a method of appeal is a far more practical and speedy way to get information than trying to use a freedom of information Bill or Act. Will the parliamentary ombudsman have sufficient resources, and will the House have an opportunity to consider a range of reports when enough experience has been gathered?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend because I think that the system will be cheaper, quicker and more easily accessible to the citizen. We have doubled the resources that are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner to make sure that he can do the work swiftly and with the competence that we always associate with his work.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that the multitude of exclusions and exemptions from his code of practice on open government means that there will be no official disclosures on, for example, the arms-to-Iraq affair, about which he will no doubt be pleased, or the Pergau dam affair? Will he also confirm that there will be no disclosures of policy analysis or of any information that the Government do not consider reliable? Is not the truth of the matter that the code of practice is just a sham?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. The exclusions from the code of practice are those that are found in most freedom of information legislation abroad. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that the system will work to achieve the objectives, which I share, of those who campaigned for greater freedom of information and that it will do so at much less cost and with much greater ease of access for the citizen.

Contracts

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in contractorisation in the public service.

Mr. David Davis: In the period from April 1992 to December 1993, decisions to contract £855 million—worth of work to the private sector were reported under the "Competing for Quality" programme.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that ghastly word "contractorisation" masks an admirable concept. Does he further agree that its implementation sometimes threatens the career structure of people in the system? I shall give an example. Technical recruitment to the Ministry of Defence may be inhibited if people do not have a proper career structure. Will he assure me that he will liaise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that that potential problem is addressed?

Mr. Davis: As my hon. Friend says, market testing and contracting out are designed wholly to improve value for money and the quality of service that the public services, including the Ministry of Defence, provide. In specifying projects, the Ministers who are involved in making decisions obviously take into account matters such as recruitment, which my hon. Friend mentions. I will, of course, speak to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter if my hon. Friend so wishes.

Mr. Flynn: What does the Minister conclude from the contractorisation of the fireworks safety campaign from civil servants to a private company, which resulted in a doubling of the cost, in the production of useless information and in a record number of firework accidents? When will the Government realise that our civil servants are still the most efficient, the least corrupt and the least politicised in the world and stop handing over their jobs to cowboys?

Mr. Davis: One part of the hon. Gentleman's question was correct—our civil service is entirely commendable. But that is not to say that some of the things that it does cannot be done better, as has been demonstrated by the market-testing programme. The in-house team won the bid in 60 per cent. of market tests, and in practically all those cases significant savings, sometimes down to about 25 per cent., were made.

Research Laboratories

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny report into the Government research laboratories.

Mr. Waldegrave: The efficiency scrutiny team will make its recommendations shortly. I intend to publish the report and to consult widely before reaching decisions on the way forward.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 90 days represents a ludicrously short time scale for the scrutiny of the efficiency of 53 Government research laboratories? Is not it likely that the scrutiny team will produce simplistic rationalisations and cuts, which could only damage the Government's research base?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not believe so. We will all see the report when it is published, and then we shall consult carefully. There is no reason why the Government should not examine carefully research overhead costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) says, we want the money to go to science. If we can find ways to save money by dispensing with unnecessary overheads, we should do so.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the Government have no money of their own—only taxpayers's money? Should not we review research laboratories sensibly and regularly so that money spent on behalf of taxpayers is applied efficiently and effectively?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend must be right when he suggests that it is the duty of any Minister to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent as efficiently as possible. We shall do that through the study and we shall do it right across the board.

Mr. Dafis: When considering the report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a recent parliamentary answer that I received showed that research funding for Wales is absolutely disgraceful? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy discuss that matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and other organisations involved in scientific research in Wales? Will he consider also devolving to Wales—to the Welsh Office—the function of research councils, together with at least 5 per cent. of funding?

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be a bad idea to devolve research council funding to Wales or to Scotland. Vice-chancellors and most of the research community—in Scotland, at any rate—are strong supporters of maintaining a national system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales recently took steps to reinforce research excellence in Wales, which will enable research contracts to be won on merit more freely, perhaps, than in the past.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government research laboratories should enjoy state-of-the-art management and organisational structures and should apply their resources as effectively as possible? Is not it essential that the review is carefully considered?

Mr. Waldegrave: As we are supporting through the Economic and Social Research Council good research into organisational theory and proper management, it would be paradoxical not to apply them to the science base itself.

Secrecy

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in reducing secrecy in Government.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's new code of practice on access to Government information came into force at the beginning of April. I am confident that it will prove to be a significant advance.

Mr. O'Brien: Is not it the case that the code, which came into effect on 4 April, will not allow the public to become fully aware of the growth of scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill? Until we have a Government who are prepared to be open with the electorate about the way in which they run their affairs, scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill will continue and the Government cannot claim to be open or to seek an end to secrecy.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) asked the same question, word for word, a few minutes ago, I suspect that it was written out


and handed to the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the code's exemptions are just about exactly the same as those in freedom of information legislation around the world. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested, he will discover that the new code of practice policed by the ombudsman will be a major step forward.

Lady Olga Maitland: On behalf of amateur and professional historians, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading his colleagues to release confidential Government information? Does he agree that that is a step forward in open government?

Mr. Waldegrave: I was grateful for the thanks that were delivered to the Government the other day by the Institute for Contemporary History. We have made major steps forward: I commend to the House for example the Farm Hall transcripts and many other things that have been released in the past year, from which the institute might learn something.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the results of introducing the citizens charter.

Mr. David Davis: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) earlier, the citizens charter second report is just such an assessment.

Mr. Enright: But does the Minister agree that the citizens charter is totally incapable of stopping Departments throwing away taxpayers' money? For example, how could it possibly get back the £200,000 that was lent to Unicorn Heritage plc and a gang of failed business men? How does it help that?

Mr. Davis: That is a disgraceful use of parliamentary questions. The "Competing for Quality" initiative, of which the charter is a part, achieves an enormous amount of improvement in value for money—as has already been said, £135 million gross in this year alone.

Points of Order

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House for a question to be tabled on a Friday for answer on the following Monday when the issue is not an emergency? I refer to question 1167 on today's Order Paper, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), in which he asks the President of the Board of Trade
when he expects to be able to publish the consultative document on the opening up of the domestic gas market; and if he will make a statement.
The issue is of vital importance to the millions of gas consumers, particularly those on low incomes, who are not likely to benefit, and those living in remote areas, whose charges will almost certainly rise. The issue has been the subject of great interest and controversy since last September, when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission first made its recommendation in a report on the domestic gas industry—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House. He knows that he cannot make a speech on a point of order. Will he now come to his point of order for me?

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I make the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the Government's first response was made on 21 December, after the House had risen? Thereafter, we expected a full statement to the House. Instead, the Government are hiding behind a written answer two days after the by-election defeats. It was delayed to avoid the elections, and has now been hidden from the gaze of the House and questioning by that technique. Is that in order?

Madam Speaker: To answer the last question first, it is perfectly in order. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have made the point that he is a long-standing Member of the House—it is for Ministers, not the Speaker, to determine whether statements should be made by means of an answer to a written question or by an oral statement at the Dispatch Box. I have no authority in such matters.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise an important matter, and it is very much a genuine point of order.

Madam Speaker: I thought that the last one was quite an important matter, too.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure, but this is an important matter.
Last Friday, the House considered the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. After the debate was concluded, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who tabled a question to Ministers about help with the drafting of amendments, received an answer from the Leader of the House saying that amendments tabled on Tuesday 3 May 1994 were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That means that all the amendments on paper No. 1295, Consideration of Bill, by four hon. Members—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Sutton and

Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Bristol North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—were tabled by parliamentary counsel.
That raises two very important issues for the House. First, in future will all hon. Members have access to parliamentary counsel when they wish to draft amendments? As I understand it, we are all equal in this House, and you, Madam Speaker, adjudicate on these matters. I want to know whether I and all my hon. Friends have that right.
Secondly, in light of the statement made by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in reply to an intervention of mine, when I asked him
Have he or his Department been in any way involved in the drafting of any of the amendments or the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam",
the Minister said:
No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area."—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
That clearly suggests to the House that, if the Minister was not responsible for giving the instruction to parliamentary counsel to draft those amendments, and civil servants were not involved, four Members of this House must have extra-special control and influence over parliamentary counsel in their decision to proceed with the drafting of those amendments.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, would establish who gave that instruction. Was it a Minister? At least then we will be able to establish where there is consistency in the answer given by the Minister, when I asked him about the arrangements relating to the drafting of those amendments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the previous point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Well, it does, yes, but it relates to a slightly different point as well. As you will know, Madam Speaker, a week last Friday, the House carried unanimously a decision calling on the Government to give more parliamentary time to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Government seem to have totally ignored that decision. The Minister was completely wrong in his summing up in relation to that resolution. The point about the Standing Order should be drawn to the Minister's attention.
On the Friday in question, the motion that was passed called on the Government to give the Bill time. However, the Minister told us that the reason why the Standing Order was changed was to prevent the Government from giving time. That is totally wrong. The Standing Order was drawn up to stop motions being transferred into Bills and the House sitting over a weekend.
I therefore submit that, on that count as well, the Minister went beyond the Standing Order. That is why I am absolutely convinced that this matter should be brought before the House again.

Ms Liz Lynne: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, I think that I understand the feeling of the House on this matter. The hon. Member for


Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised on Friday a point of order which was barely a point of order, and I answered him then.
However, in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I believe that he is mistaken in some respects. Amendments were not tabled by parliamentary counsel. Amendments are tabled by hon. Members. [Interruption.] Just a moment. Hon. Members are, of course, free to ask Ministers for assistance in drafting amendments to Bills. However, if the hon. Member for Workington would allow me to consider precisely what he has said, I should like to look further into it.

Ms Lynne: rose—

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Madam Speaker: No, I have dealt with that matter. We will now move on to the Orders of the Day. [Interruption.] Just a moment. I have dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Workington, which I think deals with a number of issues, and I want to look at it.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to that point, or is it quite different?

Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make it abundantly clear that I raise my own amendments. I sought consultation, but it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source. It seems that disabled people are being used as a political football for political purposes by the Labour party.

Madam Speaker: When I am very tolerant and sympathetic, the House runs into these problems. The hon. Lady has given an explanation. That is not a point of order. I think that we had better move on.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman have a point of order that I can deal with, and not an explanation?

Mr. Morris: Madam Speaker, as you know, I very rarely raise points of order. What concerns me is that it may be necessary, before the outcome of your inquiry, which all of us welcome and appreciate, for a right hon. Member, and perhaps at least one hon. Member, to come to the House to apologise for having made what seem to many of us to have been misleading statements here last Friday.
They purported to make it absolutely clear that they drafted the amendments. We now have it from the Leader of the House of Commons that all 80 amendments that appeared on the Order Paper last Wednesday were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. They were drafted on Tuesday and tabled on Wednesday in the names of five Conservative Members.

Madam Speaker: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I will look into the matter.

Orders of the Day — Special Educational Needs

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.
The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs has been eagerly awaited in this House and, indeed, in the other place, and by local education authorities, schools, voluntary bodies and all concerned with children with special educational needs—not least parents. If the code is approved by Parliament, it will set the framework for special educational provision for many years to come.
The code of practice springs from the Education Act 1993. Part III of that Act builds on the principles of the Education Act 1981, covering the same sort of matters. It seeks to ensure their more effective application in practice, to the benefit of all children with special educational needs and their parents. There was a clear need to review and revise the 1991 legislative framework—that was agreed by all—and the 1993 Act was the result. Regulations made under the Act and laid before Parliament at the same time as the code embody the detail of the new system.
The code of practice which we are now considering provides guidance to all concerned on the exercise of their duties under the Act and the regulations. Schools and LEAs, health services and social services must have regard to that guidance. The code seeks to create a purposive partnership among those bodies and between them, voluntary organisations and parents on behalf of all children with special educational needs.
Section 157 of the 1993 Act requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. Section 158 requires him to consult upon a draft and to bring a revised draft to Parliament for approval under the affirmative procedure, which is what we are now doing.
The draft before us today contains six sections. Part 1 sets out the main principles which inform the code as a whole. Part 2 offers guidance to schools as to how they might fulfil their duties towards pupils with special needs who do not require statements, and lays a particular emphasis on partnership between all concerned. Part 3 deals with statutory assessments—in particular, the time limits for making such assessments, guidance as to when such assessments should be made, and how such assessments should be conducted.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just had passed down the Bench a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—in which he repudiates much of what he said last week, and now gives a completely new interpretation of events. In the light of what has happened, I wonder whether you should consider this correspondence, which was literally handed down the Bench moments after you gave your ruling, from the Leader of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman lets me have the correspondence, I shall look at it, together with the point of order that he raised earlier.

Mr. Forth: Part IV deals with statements of special educational needs, including the form and content of statements and choosing the right school. Part V covers children under five with special educational needs, and part VI deals with the annual review of statements and transition to adult life. At the end of the draft code, there is an appendix covering transitional arrangements from the 1981 Act to the 1993 Act, a full glossary of terms and an index.
The code itself, as presented to Parliament, is bound between a foreword and a copy of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, neither of which is part of the code itself. The foreword aims to explain the status of the code, and other matters which I shall touch on in a moment. The regulations, together with regulations governing the information that schools must publish, have been formally laid before Parliament alongside the code.
One of the main purposes of the code is to promote partnership. In earnest of that intention, the draft code itself has been developed in partnership. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to all those who helped us to produce the consultative draft and the draft before us today.
Throughout the process, we have been most fortunate in being able to draw on the help of expert individuals from the voluntary world. We have discussed successive drafts with representatives of the local authority associations and the Society of Education Officers. Senior academics and administrators, teachers and governors have given us their time in commenting on drafts. While I readily take full responsibility for the code and its contents, the production of the code has been a co-operative effort, designed to promote co-operation on behalf of children with special educational needs. I am most grateful to the many individuals and organisations who have helped us.
On a personal note, Madam Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge, pay tribute to and thank my officials in the Department for Education, who have worked tirelessly with dedication and sensitivity to bring the code to fruition and to the House today. Without their work, it would not have been possible.
The revised draft is also the result of extensive consultation. We issued over 30,000 copies of the consultative draft. We attended meetings of teachers, parents, governors, the health services and social services across the country. We received over 1,000 written responses and analysed them closely. I hope that those who took much time and trouble to contribute will consider that their efforts are reflected in the revised draft which is before the House today.
The consultation process revealed a general welcome for the principle of issuing such a code and for the main principles of the draft, including the emphasis on the role of parents, the emphasis on pupils who have special needs but who do not require statements, the guidance on when assessments and statements should be made, the emphasis on clear, thorough statements, and the stress on partnership among all agencies.
The consultation also revealed areas of concern. There were calls for greater clarity about the status of the code, about what it means to have regard to the code, and about what will be expected of schools and others when it comes into effect. There were concerns about schools' capacity to

follow the guidance of the draft code and about the implications for professional development and in-service training. There were important concerns about the draft's coverage of co-operation between the services involved, and about the sources of advice and information available to parents. The revised draft code, read together with the draft foreword, is designed to meet those concerns, and I am confident that it does so.
The new draft foreword explains the code's status. Local education authorities and schools, when fulfilling their functions under part III of the 1993 Act, must have regard to the code. So must any bodies that help them perform those functions—for example, the health services and social services.
The code itself offers wide-ranging guidance. It recommends, for example, that LEAs and schools should adopt a staged approach, matching action to each child's needs, but it is up to the LEAs and schools to decide exactly how they should apply the code's guidance. It is not a prescriptive straitjacket: it is there to help schools and LEAs, and help children with special educational needs. But whenever they, the health services and social services take action on behalf of such children, they must consider what the code says.
It is our intention that the code should come into effect on 1 September this year, but we do not expect that all schools will have systems in place at that time which will all match the code's aspirations. We do expect all schools to have regard to the code from that date, and we do expect the effect of their having regard to the code to develop over time. As I shall explain, we shall be monitoring their progress closely.
During the consultation process, we listened very carefully to what schools had to say. We recognised that they were worried that the code, while admirable in principle, might not be realisable in practice. We recognised, too, that they were worried about pressures on their time, and about bureaucratic burdens.
We have revised the code accordingly. We have made it clear that the way in which schools react to the code will vary in the light of their particular circumstances. We have set out as guidance an example of a staged approach, which we have kept to basic principles and which emphasises the importance of gathering information at stage 1, developing individual education plans at stage 2 and consulting outside experts at stage 3. I hope that schools will welcome these changes, and that the code now represents an effective and feasible way forward.
We recognise, too, that schools and LEAs will need to think carefully, in the light of the code, about how they manage money to secure maximum benefit for pupils with special educational needs. Substantial sums are already available, and I believe that the code will ensure that they are put to best use.
LEAs, for example, will wish to give careful thought to how the funding allocated to them is distributed to schools. That is a matter for the LEAs themselves, but the code should help those who wish to do so to introduce moderated audit schemes reflecting the numbers of pupils with special educational needs in schools.
Schools themselves will wish to think hard about how they use the money they receive, whether allocated by audit schemes or by proxy measures. Schools' SEN policies must set out the principles by which funds are


allocated to and amongst pupils with special educational needs, and their annual reports must tell parents how the money has been used.
The consultative draft emphasised partnership. I hope that the revised draft reinforces that message. Part II contains new material on the way in which the health services should be organised to help children with special educational needs. Nowhere is partnership more important than in providing help for children with speech and language difficulties.
To help to develop that partnership further, my Department and the Department of Health will jointly make available £50,000 in this financial year to back a development project designed to maximise the use of speech therapists' time. The results will be widely disseminated.
There is new material, too, on SEN support services. The development of the role of the named person, who can help parents in all their dealings with LEAs, is also a new incentive for voluntary organisations to become directly involved in the process.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the resources available to the speech therapy service be related to the number of children whose special needs have been formally recorded?

Mr. Forth: Not in the direct sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests, or requests. Given the way in which speech therapy is delivered and the way in which the needs of children, for example, are identified, I do not believe that one can make that direct comparison.
Obviously, the Department for Education and those responsible for speech therapy services—my colleagues in the Department of Health and their agencies—will want always to be satisfied that the number of speech therapists is adequate to the need. I think that I am right in saying that, given the increase in the number of speech therapists nationally in the past few years, we can have some confidence that that will be the case. It is one of the things that will be monitored. I should like to come back to that point later. My remarks might help to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
Partnership with parents is a vital aspect of each part of the code. We have placed in the Library a draft of the guide for parents, which we intend to issue and distribute very widely alongside the code. We are backing our commitment to partnership by making some £3.5 million support available through grants for education, support and training for LEAs to develop parent partnership schemes. I am delighted to say that every LEA has bid for and received funding for such schemes this financial year.
I have outlined just some of the changes that we have made in the light of the consultative process. We recognise, of course, that more is needed if the code is to effect change. If its messages are to have a real impact, training and professional development, energetic dissemination, and careful monitoring will be essential.
Paragraph 2:26 of the code recognises the importance of in-service training. References are made to the training needs of all teaching staff, non-teaching staff, SEN co-ordinators and governors. Under the new special educational needs information regulations, a school's SEN

policy must describe the school's training plans. Funding of almost £10 million in 1994–95 will be available for this purpose through grant for education support and training.
GEST funding will also be available for the development of schools' SEN policies, for the professional development of SEN co-ordinators and for governor training. In February, I announced a £2 million increase in the support available in 1994–95 through the wholly new GEST grant 23—giving a total of some £5.6 million. With separate financial support from my Department, the Council for Disabled Children and the university of London institute of education are preparing a distance learning pack to help schools develop policies. That pack should be available early in the autumn.
Subject to Parliament's approval, the code will be published next month. It will be distributed promptly to all schools and other interested parties. With the help of the Council for Disabled Children and the National Children's Bureau, we shall then launch a major dissemination exercise at conferences that we have arranged up and down the country.
I am delighted to report that the local authority associations and the Society for Education Officers will join us in that exercise. Other organisations such as the National Association for Special Educational Needs have taken their own most welcome initiatives in arranging conferences to get the message across.
I now turn to monitoring. Registered inspectors will carefully examine schools' SEN policies and their implementation in the light of the code. The Office for Standards in Education's special educational needs team will devote particular attention to the code. It will look, for example, at the impact of special educational needs support services.
The Audit Commission, which already monitors LEAs' performance in making assessments and statements, will have its vital role to play. There may well be a role, as appropriate, for the research community. We will draw all this information together and, of course, keep Parliament fully informed.
The issue of the code of practice represents a major step forward for special education. The code reflects and builds on the principles of the report of the Committee chaired by Baroness Warnock, the Education Act 1981 and the many positive developments in the field since that Act came into effect.
Importantly, the code also reflects good practice in schools and LEAs across the country. It is challenging, but it is realistic. I hope that it will receive the support not only of the House but of all concerned with special educational needs throughout the country. I hope that it will represent a quantum leap forward in the provision for special educational needs.

Mr. Win Griffiths: First, I reiterate what the Minister has heard me say before—we welcome the code of practice. We only wish that the Government had introduced other major pieces of legislation in a similar way. From the beginning, when they were challenged in Committee about how the new processes would work, Ministers were heard to say, "That will be a matter for the code of practice," or, "That is too difficult to answer now, but we will look into it when we draw up the code of practice."
In all fairness, great efforts have been made behind the scenes to ensure that, by and large, the code meets the problems and concerns raised in Committee. It is also obvious that, having issued the draft code, the Government listened to representations they received during consultation as changes have been made and have further improved the code.
I therefore hope that, despite the fact that I shall concentrate on remaining matters for concern and potential problems, some of which could be fundamental, the House will not doubt that we welcome the code as a significant and important step forward in dealing with children's special educational needs.
The code is the most recent in a long line of decisions taken by Ministers, starting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who instituted the Warnock committee which brought about the Education Act 1991. The code of practice is another landmark decision.
I hope that the Government will accept that I am raising concerns that many organisations have pointed out to me, and other matters about which I am worried.
My first concern is about training, which is at the heart of whether the code will be successful. The Government have already listened to concerns about the role of the special educational needs co-ordinator and the fact that we should not place so much responsibility on that person or persons in any school.
We also welcome the funding that is made available through grants for education support and training—GEST—and the fact that the Government have been careful to ensure that provision will be made for the training of special educational needs co-ordinators and all staff, whether teaching or non-teaching, and governors.
Some aspects still worry me, however. For example, the Minister referred to paragraph 2:26 of the code, which is found on page 12, but its description of what might happen is the wrong way round. The end of the paragraph states:
A school contemplating a particular special educational needs in-service training programme may wish to inform itself of the LEA's in-service training policy and may also wish to consult other schools in the area with a view to securing economies of scale and sharing expertise.
It should not be an option. Each local education authority, in concert with all the schools, should draw up the necessary in-service training plans. Training should not be optional: it should be something that all schools and the LEAs are involved in from the beginning.
Over the years, the actual requirement for teachers to have expertise in and knowledge of special education has diminished. I believe that the current Education Bill, which will be considered in Committee from tomorrow, will cause further problems, because it will be difficult to ensure that new teachers receive the range of expertise during school-based teacher training that will be required if the code is to be implemented successfully. The code demands that all teachers should be special education teachers.
I welcome the money that the Government are making available for training, developing partnerships with parents and ensuring that governors are aware of their responsibilities. What about the special needs co-ordinator? In most schools, the person undertaking that job will be performing a new specific, additional role. That person must be rewarded for that.
In the early years of the working of the code, I can envisage that, in some large comprehensive schools, it might be necessary to appoint several special needs co-cordinators. In the short term, as the code begins to operate effectively and picks up children with special needs and ensures that those needs are met, more money must be made available for that purpose.
The Government have said that, in the next few years, they expect that more children will be statemented. In the short term, therefore, significant additional funds will be required to ensure that the code is introduce effectively and the needs of children are properly met. In the long term, however, as those needs are picked up earlier, as should happen under the code, I am sure that number of statements made will fall.
On page 10 of code, paragraph 2.15 refers to the work of the special needs co-ordinator and what schools might need to do to ensure that that job is done properly. It is worrying to note that that requirement is considered in the context of the resources available to schools. That is one of the issues that has bedevilled the provision of special needs since 1981. Very often, parents and local educational authorities have been involved in a battle royal over provision because of fears about costs. I fear that that could happen again, even though the code has been introduced.
When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee on Education, he was questioned about the monitoring of the code. He believed that such monitoring would be carried out by parents, governors, LEA inspectors, OFSTED and the special educational needs tribunal. Governors and LEAs might, however, become more concerned with keeping spending within limits rather than the effective implementation of the code. OFSTED inspectors will usually visit schools in a four-year cycle, which is hardly sufficient for monitoring that code. That means that monitoring will be left to parents and the SEN tribunal. It is clear that parents will need help.
The Department for Education has given OFSTED a monitoring remit to offer advice in the run-in period, but I believe that it should be given a further remit to carry out monitoring beyond the scope for which it has the resources at the moment. In other words, OFSTED should have a stronger remit than the four-yearly assessment of schools, in connection with the implementation of the code of practice in its early years. The Government have said that they intend to review what local education authorities are doing—considering how long statements take to be made and so on—and I should be interested to hear more about the precise way in which that will work.
There is a danger of disputes arising between schools and LEAs, because, although the Government are making, and have made, great efforts to develop partnerships between parents and schools and schools and LEAs, there could be disputes between the school and the LEA about the five-stage system and the criteria for assessment.
For example, if the schools and the LEAs have not agreed on the respective means for operating the five-stage system—which, I am pleased to say, does not have to be mechanically followed—there can be an agreement between the two, but there is a danger of an LEA saying to a school: "We are not happy with the way in which you have gone through the stages, or your adaptation of the stages, before coming to us and requesting an assessment." I hope that that danger can be tackled.
In addition, there could be a grey area between what the school is expected to provide from its resources and what


the LEA is expected to provide on the basis of the needs stipulated in the statement. The draft of the code before us puts a stronger emphasis on the role of the LEA in that respect. I hope that such disputes will not take place, and that the Government will be prepared to issue further advice and guidance if questions arise.
The code has made great efforts to improve liaison between local education authorities, health authorities, health trusts and social services departments. Many of the problems of providing a statement in six months have often occurred with agencies over which the LEA has no control. The code attempts to ensure that everyone keeps in step in meeting the timings that are required; nevertheless, I know that LEAs are still fearful that, especially at the final stage, there may not be sufficient time for them to properly complete the statement, and that therefore they could have recourse to the several provisions in paragraph 3.43 to enable them to take a little longer.
I am especially worried about speech and language therapy, because I am not happy that, by the provisions in paragraphs 4.34 to 4.36 of the code on page 82, the Government have cleared up who should pay for that therapy and in what circumstances. I do not understand why the Government did not opt for the procedure that is followed in Scotland, where it would appear that the service is being provided in a way that is welcomed by health authorities, LEAs, parents and schools.
Better provision is made in the code for under-fives. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case for improving such provision. There should be specific provision for special educational need co-cordinators to be provided in nursery schools or for local education authorities to make specific peripatetic provision to cover nursery schools, nursery classes and playgroups, in all of which there will be a need to ensure that the special educational needs of children are picked up as soon as possible.
I hope that the Government will consider provision beyond the age of 14 in more detail. They have instituted a system for children from the age of 14 onwards, which will be better for those children who previously had statements. Nevertheless, it leaves children with learning difficulties but without statements in a position where they will not necessarily get the help they require once they leave school. Will the Government consider extending the operation of the code to 19-year-olds?
I have received many representations on the need to mention autism in the code of practice. I have spoken about that issue to people working in the health service and schools, and to parents. It is reckoned that some 30,000 children may be affected by difficulties associated with the autistic continuum. There is now strong evidence that autism is under-identified and therefore under-provided for by local education authorities.
The Departments for Education and for Health are undertaking research, with the good offices of Professor Elizabeth Newson, director of the child development research unit at Nottingham university. An interim report has been published, but I understand that a complete report expected last September has not yet been published. I hope that the Government will respond positively to that research if it becomes apparent that a stronger and more specific reference to autism needs to be made.
The "named person" is also a welcome improvement, but have the Government considered the difficulties that may arise for parents whose children have emotional or behavioural problems? Over a wide spectrum of special needs, many voluntary organisations work in that area, but help may not be so forthcoming for emotional and behavioural problems. I should welcome a response from the Minister on that issue.
Have the Government compiled, or are they in the process of compiling, a list of lay members with expertise in special needs and local government to serve on the tribunals?

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to see the Minister nod.
Paragraph 6:12 on page 100 refers to people who should attend the special annual review but makes no compulsion. A local education authority should be obliged to have a representative at the annual review, because, under the code of practice, schools now play a much greater role than previously. Schools should be properly resourced for that work.
My last specific point concerns a matter that appeared in the original document but does not appear in this draft—the requirement for schools to specify the special educational experience and qualifications of members of staff. While much is said about what schools must do in terms of providing information about training, nothing is said about the experience and qualifications of staff. Why were those matters dropped from the code? It is valuable information, which parents should have.
On the framework in which the code will operate, a recent Court of Appeal decision will allow parents to sue local education authorities if they believe that the authorities have failed to provide appropriate special education for their children. It is important that the code of practice is seen to work properly.
Then there are the pressures on learning support services caused by other Government policies. There is much evidence that such services are under great pressure; there must be concern about whether there will be enough support at the centre to ensure that schools have access to them in developing their own policies and practice, and identifying and meeting special educational needs.
A survey conducted by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, for example, reveals a decline in the number of such teachers. Let me give just one example: in the midlands region, between 1991 and 1993, there were 380 more children with hearing impairments, but 16 fewer teachers of the deaf to deal with them. In the same period, the number of vacancies for educational psychologists increased from 42 to 70. If the code is to work properly, however, extra responsibilities will be imposed on such people—especially at stage 2—as they must help with preventive work in schools.
Another survey, carried out in a Merseyside authority, showed a loss of 28 special needs support teachers in 28 schools, at a time when the number of pupils with special needs had increased in more than 50 per cent. of those schools. I am worried about the ability of local education authorities to provide for schools.
In that context, too, the local government reforms pose a problem. My education authority, Mid Glamorgan, currently employs either three or four educational psychologists; when the county is divided into four or even


five separate education authorities, there will not be enough psychologists even for one to be employed in each authority. Local authorities in both Wales and England must be brought together to ensure that they provide such services.
The problem is that the Government seem to see schools as self-sufficient units, to be judged principally on their examination results, and the meeting of special education needs is not considered as important as it should be. The increase in the number of exclusions is very worrying; I know that the Government are trying to deal with the problem, but—although the code has tremendous possibilities and is very welcome—I am concerned about potential problems that could damage its implementation if they were not prepared to monitor it carefully and perhaps, in its third year of existence, conduct a major, far-reaching and independent review.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I should, perhaps, declare my interests, as both the parent of a child with a statement and a parliamentary adviser—unpaid—to the National Association for Special Educational Needs.
I welcome the code of practice. I welcome it in principle: it offers an amplification of the Government's objectives and recommendations. It is not rigidly prescriptive in regard to method and leaves proper scope for professional judgment and discretion. At the same time, it has authority and legal standing derived from the Education Act 1993 and from the requirement for the tribunal to have regard to the code in forming its judgments. That authority is reinforced by the intention—mentioned in the foreword—for registered inspectors and the Office for Standards in Education to monitor the code's implementation.
I think that the Government have struck the right balance, leaving scope for independence of judgment while making it clear that they attach great importance to the implementation of best practice on the model set out in the code. I applaud the substance of the code. It strikes me as a fully considered, imaginative exposition, setting out and underpinning best practice in schools and local education authorities. I may differ from the Government over one or two points of detail in the code, but most of the document I find admirable.
The document valuably clarifies the responsibilities of all concerned. In their document "Getting in on the Act", the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate called for clearer definitions of objectives and responsibilities and for improved accountability. We could not possibly ask for those requirements to be better met than they have been in the code.
Promulgation of the code will also, I believe, mitigate some of the difficulties that I had feared would arise from the absence of a planning framework. I spoke about that during proceedings on the Education Bill last year, on 2 March. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, with colleagues, I met the Secretary of State to pursue a discussion on that last summer. The code is a positive and constructive response in that regard.
For instance, I am interested in, and welcome, the proposal that there should be moderating groups, as set out in paragraph 4.7, although I should have liked the tone of that section to be rather less tentative. It is a good idea and it should be pursued vigorously. Similarly, I welcome the

recommendation that standard formats for record keeping should be used. Again, I should have liked paragraph 2.25 on this subject to be rather firmer in tone. Standard formats should be used nationally, not just within a local education authority. In that way, we can help to promote equity and to minimise discontinuity. The discrepancies and gaps between primary and secondary phases, between different schools in an authority's area and between different education authorities have been a justifiable source of discontent. I want pressure to be maintained in the direction of more equity and consistency of provision.
Some have said that consultation on the document was somewhat too restricted, but it seems clear to me from the revision that we are debating today that Ministers and officials have listened and have responded to proposals put to them in consultation. Certainly, they have significantly redrafted the document.
I greatly welcome the inclusion of the foreword. I was pleased to note that even the rather dauntingly legalistic notice to parents, which is fairly intractable material to make user-friendly, had been rewritten and is now fractionally less forbidding.
I know that the National Association for Special Educational Needs is grateful for the constructive consideration given to its representations. I also know that the British Dyslexia Association has welcomed the passage in the revised code on the criteria for achieving multi-professional assessments of dyslexia and the new section on resolving parental complaints at school level.
I offer my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) my warmest congratulations on his achievement. I believe that it marks a most valuable advance for parents, children, teachers and all practitioners in this field.
The time scale held out for implementation seems sensible and realistic. The foreword in which the regulations are explained makes it clear that it is not expected that the systems will instantly come into being and emerge fully fledged by 1 September. At the same time, it is made equally clear that schools and LEAs are expected to get down to their task and to develop systems to put them in a position to publish information on their special educational needs policies by 1 August 1995, and thereafter to keep them up to date and to make them clear in prospectuses and annual reports. That is reasonable.
I do not underestimate the demands that the code will make on the teaching profession and indeed on all the relevant professions, but the right balance has been struck in the time scale that the Government envisage.
I welcome what the Minister said about his plans to explain the code and to encourage and to build confidence on the part of all who will have to operate it, by means of a series of conferences and training events. I am pleased that he welcomes the partnership with voluntary organisations and that he at least does not regard pressure groups as subversive of all that is best in our national life.
It will not be enough just to distribute the document, although it is important to distribute it as rapidly as possible to all schools and voluntary organisations at local and national levels. We still need to overcome some apprehension and misapprehension among teachers. At the weekend, I spoke to an experienced and dedicated special educational needs teacher who was teaching seriously disabled children in a difficult inner-city area. She had not had the opportunity to read the draft code, which I do not think was distributed to all schools, and she was fearful of


what it might mean. She had heard about the five-stage model and she was worried that it was one more bureaucratic incubus from the Department. She was even apprehensive that teachers might boycott the code.
Teachers need not have any such fears. In paragraph 7 of the foreword, Ministers sensibly and helpfully explain that the detail of what schools decide to do
may vary according to the size, organisation, location and pupil population of the school.
Paragraph 12 states:
In practice, the precise definition of the stages and the number of stages adopted are matters for schools and LEAs to decide, consulting each other, in the light of the Code.
That is sensible and, when understood, should allay any fears. It will be important to explain and reassure as soon as possible.
Implementation of the code will entail taking a clear view of resources. There is no question but that the proper implementation of the code will cost money, but no one should exaggerate what it will cost and no one should exploit the fact that it will place a new set of demands on the system. Everyone should seek best value for money.
Some unavoidable costs will arise—for example, the appointment of the special educational needs co-ordinator, who should be properly rewarded for the demanding task that he or she will have to undertake. Other teachers may well have to take over some of the former responsibilities of the SENCO—the special educational needs co-ordinator. Consider the activities to be undertaken not only by the SENCO, but perhaps by all colleagues.
They will involve developing overall school procedures, assembling information about individual children, recording, consulting parents, ascertaining the wishes of the child, co-ordinating with other services, generating letters and holding meetings, assessing, planning and reviewing. That will involve far from insignificant resources in stages 1 and 2 and stage 3 will involve the cost of outside specialist services. Account has also to be taken of the cost of training, which, if properly done, could be the biggest cost.
The identification of budgetary resources applied to special educational needs school by school will be essential in the interests of accountability and so that we can know whether resourcing will be adequate. It is natural for people to say that resources will not be sufficient—people will always say that schools do not have enough—but we should at least be clear what resources they have. I am glad that paragraph 2:7 of the revised draft emphasises the obligation on the governing body to establish the appropriate funding arrangements.
Paragraph 2:11 places an obligation to include in the annual report information on
how resources have been allocated to and amongst children with special educational needs over the year".
Local management of schools formulae have varied significantly in relation to special education needs across the country. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on the evolution that he foresees of the LMS methodology. It is important to ensure not only transparency but the maximum fairness and consistency between authorities. Arbitrary variations between one local education authority and another of resources applied to special needs have been a source of puzzlement, and all too often people have felt a sense of unfairness and disappointment.
In another place last year, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, made a helpful and important comment. During proceedings on the Education Bill, Lady Faithfull, who knows a thing or two about local authorities, asked whether there might be a risk that a local authority treasurer might say that it was too expensive to provide a statement. My noble Friend said unequivocally:
The child is diagnosed as having special educational needs. Those needs are set out in a statement and then the education provision consistent with those needs must be found. It is reasonable for the treasurer to say to those involved in making that professional judgment that they must look for the most cost-effective solution. But the cost-effective solution they come up with must be wholly consistent with the statement, whatever the cost."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993; Vol.545, c.562—63.]
I do not know whether my noble Friend was then upbraided by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I have not been able to find any such unequivocal and sonorous statement in the code. Perhaps the Minister will reaffirm that resources must be found to match the statement and that that will be put into the final code.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer that important question now in case we run out of time. There are two important aspects. One is in the interesting current variation in the number of statements provided by different local authorities—for example, fewer than 2 per cent. of pupils in some authorities to nearly 4 per cent. in others. That shows that most authorities can find the money if they can justify it and support the mechanism.
The other crucial new factor in the equation is that for the first time, the special educational needs tribunal will have powers to bind local education authorities on the statementing process and will do so quite impartially. Those two factors lead me to suppose that the money will be found where it is necessary under the constraints of the new standardised, but more rigorous, approach.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he well understands the great importance of this issue. If his intentions in the code are to be truly fulfilled, we must not slide back to resource-led statements with all the evasions, the frustrations, the sadness and the waste of children's potential that they have involved.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I welcome what the Minister has said, but why was it necessary in paragraph 2.15 on page 10 of the code to say:
Governing bodies and head teachers may need to give careful thought to the SEN co-ordinator's timetable in the light of this Code and in the context of resources available to the school"?
Surely the SEN co-ordinator's role should be developed and resources should be found to make sure that the co-ordinator is able to do his or her job properly.

Mr. Howarth: It is not for me to answer that question but I think that all hon. Members, and those on the Front Benches, agree that the necessary resources must be found. Of course that applies not only at school level but, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) suggested in his speech, what the noble Baroness Blatch said has an important bearing on LEA resourcing. There are legitimate concerns about the contraction of special educational needs support services in LEAs. If we are to make the code's aspirations a reality the support services at LEA level should be sufficiently resourced.
The principle of integration of children with special needs into mainstream education and the requirements of the code carry, massive implications for initial teacher training, in-service education and training and for specialist training in the special educational needs field. Training is the ghost at the feast in the code. I note what is said in paragraph 2.26 and I noted what the Minister said.
Although I welcome the Department's support for the development of distance learning packages, relatively little about training is explicit in the code, while there is much that is implicit. The code assumes a formidable range and depth of expertise. Every school will have a so-called responsible person. There are implications in the document for the training of heads and deputies and of governors, whose responsibilities will be enormous, special educational needs co-ordinators and all teachers in all schools.
Training will be the fountainhead of success or failure. The code rightly raises expectations and sets better standards. We understand, for example, that some 300,000 schoolchildren have dyslexia. The code has important and constructive points to make about their entitlement. Teachers in all schools will need to know how to identify and respond to specific learning difficulties. The development of that competence will need to be embedded in initial teacher training and reinforced in INSET—in-service training—through the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme.
I welcome the fact that GEST funding for special educational needs training is due to rise from £6.6 million in 1991–92 to £9.7 million in 1994–95. I am not sure how many schools the country has now but in my time in the Department, they were thought to number 27,000. On my reckoning, that amounts to £360 per school and the LEA must provide an additional 40 per cent. Given that standard spending assessments are tight, how confident is my hon. Friend the Minister that the necessary training will be sufficiently resourced? There must be enough good training and sufficient resources must be provided. Training must draw on the latest and best practice in schools nationally and internationally.
I welcome the requirement that one member of the Teacher Training Agency should have knowledge of special educational needs. I hope more than one member will do so and that that experience and knowledge will be fully up to date.
I am concerned that the Government envisage that initial teacher training could be offered by schools without collaborating with higher education. Although some schools have highly developed expertise in special educational needs, all too many do not, and no school can reasonably be expected to keep absolutely up to date with latest developments.
How can the generality of schools, which have considerable leeway to make up, take responsibility for developing the content of training, to provide their own teachers and prospective teachers with the knowledge and skills demanded by the code? My hon. Friend the Minister may say that the criteria for the accreditation of courses will provide a safeguard, but what if schools fail to satisfy those criteria? Where will training come from then?
I understand that my hon. Friend does not envisage schools running specialist training on their own without input from higher education, but the Education Bill does not preclude it either. Special education is, by definition, special. Teachers of children with special educational needs must provide teaching that is additional, to and

different from, ordinary education. Their training must correspondingly inculcate special knowledge and skills. I should be most concerned if training in special educational needs were cut off from access to national and international developments.
A recent conference on integration organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that special educational needs are a rapidly developing field in many countries. We must not deprive ourselves of the ability to learn from international experience. Rather, we should ensure that, where appropriate, it is rapidly translated into the practice in our schools. Schools alone cannot possibly achieve that.
There is a shortfall of available specialist teachers. The number completing courses in teaching pupils with severe learning difficulties fell from 200 in 1989 to 80 in 1993. The number of teachers of hearing-impaired children qualifying has fallen from 150 to 110. The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf reports an average age of more than 40 for new trainees and a serious fall-off in younger teachers. Special schools and support services are having difficulty in filling appointments with qualified people. If there is to be further doubt about the viability of specialist training courses in institutions of higher education, I fear that numbers will fall even further. Yet the code, for example, in paragraphs 3:78 and 3:79 on the assessment of children with hearing difficulties, makes assumptions and, indeed, explicit requirements that imply considerable specialist expertise.
We must ensure that we will the means as well as the ends. A great deal of training is needed. It must be adequately resourced, and the processes of training must not be cut off from the centres of expertise in higher education—for example, the university of London institute of education and the education department of the university of Manchester, which have a great deal to offer, as we all know.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be willing to ensure that the Education Bill will require, training for special educational needs to be carried out in collaboration with institutions of higher education. I welcomed his undertaking on Second Reading, in response to an intervention from me, to reflect further on that. If we fail to ensure appropriate training, the volume of appeals will ineluctably soar and, after all, we do not want the tribunal to be busy. We must not see the aspirations of the code turn to bitter disappointment on account of failure in training.
The code and the legislation will be helpful in achieving better collaboration between services, but, like the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I have some worries in that regard. I am concerned that delays in the processes of assessment and statementing might be generated from agencies other than local education authorities—particularly from health authorities.
I remain dissatisfied with paragraphs 4:34 to 4:36 on speech and language therapy, which simply recapitulate the existing unsatisfactory status quo at law. I would add that they look at the existing pattern of provision somewhat through rose-tinted spectacles. The availability of speech therapy remains deficient in too many health authorities. In the gap between what is described as
educational and non-educational provision
and what is referred to as "prime" and "ultimate"


responsibility, a great deal of time can be lost—precious, irrecoverable time—for children, whose development every week and month is crucial.
The case law has helped to clarify responsibilities, but as the wording of the code demonstrates, they are still not nearly clear-cut enough. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools last year asking him whether he would use the opportunity provided by the Education Bill to define beyond doubt where responsibility lay. I believe that the duty to provide speech and language therapy in schools should rest clearly and inescapably with the local education authority, which should buy in the professional services it needs from the health authority, or where ever. Will my hon. Friend therefore look for an opportunity to act on that and at least strengthen his expression of expectation in the code?
I want to end on a positive note. I believe that the tone and style of the code are exactly what are needed. It is written in plain English—it should be submitted for a prize for that. It is humane in spirit. It is undogmatic. It makes it clear that its provisions are not set in tablets of stone and that it will evolve as a living document. The emphasis on partnership—with both parents and children—to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is right and necessary. All that is humane and sensible.
Throughout the code, there is a sensitive recognition of the stress, anguish and even depression that parents of children with special needs can experience. In the past, the processes of assessment and statementing have, all too typically, been antagonistic and dragged out. I welcome, for example, the provision in paragraph 3:11 for a "named person" to be a friend to parents when the assessment and statementing process is being carried forward. I welcome also the desire, expressed in paragraph 3:12, to avoid confrontation.
The code contains imaginative touches, such as the recommendation that the letter telling parents that a local education authority intends to undertake an assessment should be delivered personally. The code requires that parents should be treated with respect and dignity. They are entitled to receive all the reports and are encouraged to express their own preferences for the school at which their child should be placed. I was pleased to note that they were not discouraged from expressing a preference for a non-maintained special school.
The requirements for targets for progress and for time scales to be observed will be exceptionally valuable for children and their parents who, all too frequently in the past, had to face the prospect of almost endless struggle to achieve what they ought to have. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend can assure me that OFSTED and the Department will be vigilant to ensure that stages 1 to 3 do not become excessively prolonged as the stages preliminary to assessment and statement. I know that that is a concern of the British Dyslexia Association.
I welcome the tribunal. That was an idea that was under consideration during my time at the Department. I am very glad that my successors have carried it forward. It should mean an end to local education authorities being judge and jury in their own case on appeals and to the protracted and bitterly legalistic and antagonistic process of appeals to the Secretary of State.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can ensure sufficient resources and if we have sensible arrangements for training, with the code, the interests and prospects of children with special educational needs will be enormously enhanced.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When The Times made its recent appeal for donations to help AFASIC—the association that represents children and young people with speech and language impairments and their families—the outcome was not only one of much-needed financial help for a voluntary organisation whose achievements are held in admiration on both sides of the House: the appeal also made hundreds of thousands of people much better informed of the extent of unmet need for speech and language therapy among children and young people in this country.
It is about AFASIC's reaction to the code of practice that I want to speak in this debate. I do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) recalled, as the former Minister for the Disabled who, in the 1970s, was principally involved in the setting up of the Warnock committee. As the House knows, my interest in the debate arises also from my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the first ever statute specifically to legislate for children with dyslexia and autism, as well as those with the devastating dual handicap of blindness and deafness.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that he was ending his speech on a positive note. It is on a positive note that I begin my speech. Let me make it clear at once that AFASIC welcomes many aspects of the code, not least its recognition of the importance of early identification, assessment and provision. The association also welcomes the code's emphasis on partnership between schools, parents, the local education authority, other agencies and the children and young people themselves; its clarity in establishing stages of assessment and provision and the identification of responsibilities at each stage; and its time limits for the assessment and statementing process.
AFASIC's concerns about issues raised by the code of practice include the onerous responsibilities placed on the individual special needs co-ordinator within the school. The association is concerned also about whether special needs co-ordinators will be given training, more especially as there appears to be no money in the 1994–95 grants for education support and training—GEST—budget; the need for a Government lead in regard to the training of teachers, therapists and other professionals in order to ensure effective implementation of the code; and the worrying assumption that measures detailed in the code can be implemented with no adjustment to the level of resources available.
The issue of resources is made all the more important by wider public understanding now both of the extent of the need for speech and language therapy intervention in the school-age population and of the pace at which need is growing. Nearly a quarter of a million children today have some speech and language impairment or disorder. Of those, 6,000 or 7,000 have severe, long-term difficulties. Some 10 per cent. of all pre-school and school-age children have difficulties which could interfere with their


educational progress at some time; and 5 per cent. of all children enter school with noticeable speech and language difficulties.
In England and Wales, responsibility for ensuring that there is provision for speech and language therapy is currently divided between local education authorities and district health authorities, with the result that many children do not receive the therapy they need, or (10 so only as a result of strong parental persistence. Many parents, of course, are sadly in no position to exert such pressure.
The code fails to clarify who is responsible for ensuring that therapy is purchased for those children—an issue of increasing concern to public representatives, voluntary groups like AFASIC, professionals and families. Again, the distinction in the code between "prime" and "ultimate" responsibility is of little help to purchasers, providers or parents.
The Council of Local Education Authorities—CLEA—recently compiled a dossier of evidence from LEAs of shortfall and confusion in the provision of speech and language therapy to children who are acknowledged to need this help in order to progress with their education. I give the House two sample quotations from that dossier. The first is:
One of our health districts, covering a school population of approximately 20,000, provides no service to children in mainstream schools over the age of eight, whether statemented or not. Our special school for children with autism/communication disorders is underfunded to the tune of one full-time equivalent speech therapist. Our six moderate learning disorders—MLD—schools require an additional two full-time equivalent speech therapists to meet the needs of children placed there. The provision of speech and language therapy is (apart from dyslexia) the issue which chronically prevents the LEA from developing reasonably harmonious relationships with parents.
My second quotation is about differing levels of therapy services. It shows that, in effect, the level and availability of therapy services depend not on the urgency or extent of need, but on where one lives. I quote again from the dossier:
We liaise with six different health authorities which offer widely varying levels of therapy services. Achieving coherent delivery of this service is therefore particularly difficult and has been further exacerbated by the developing purchaser/provider split in the health authorities themselves. Agreements with the purchasers do not necessarily hold with the provider … the DHA is placing children on ever-lengthening waiting lists and there is increasing evidence of disagreement over whether cases are educational or medical in origin. A recent joint LEA/DHA working group showed that a disproportionate amount of speech therapy time is devoted to adults.
That is the background, some might think sombre background, to the Minister's statement today that it has always been the Government's policy to match speech therapy provision for children to their needs.
Confusion over who is responsible for ensuring the purchase of speech and language therapy is exacerbated by shortages among the providers. Figures to demonstrate this shortfall are scarce. That is due in part, AFASIC believes, to fear on the part of purchasers and providers of identifying needs they are unable to meet. No such fear was shown, however, by the Greenwich healthcare speech and language therapy service. In a survey last June, it identified a shortfall of 5.8 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for children in mainstream schools and a shortfall of 5.6 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for children in special schools.

Mr. Forth: If I do not have an opportunity to reply formally to the debate, as I want my colleagues to have an opportunity to speak, I will write to everyone who has participated in it.
However, with regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), against the background of the general increase in the amount being spent on speech therapy over the past few years, I hope that he will acknowledge that, for the first time, in the Education Act 1993, we made provision for a much more explicit and formal co-operation and co-ordination between local education authorities and local health authorities. I hope that that will be helpful.
Later this year, my Department will have further discussions with AFASIC and others to determine the nature of any continuing and on-going problems and the best way to resolve them. We have not by any means seen or heard the last word on this matter. We will consider very carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Morris: I am very grateful to the Minister. I wish him luck with the Treasury in securing more resources for the very needful children about whom we are concerned in this debate. I hope that the debate itself will arm the Minister with compelling arguments for more resources for these children.
I was referring to the Greenwich healthcare speech and language therapy service. Its disturbing findings were made at a time when there were also 417 pre-school children among the service's case load and a further 213 children awaiting an assessment.
In a survey carried out in September 1992, the Canterbury and Thanet service identified a shortfall of 4.1 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for statemented children in mainstream schools. At the time of that survey, 288 children in Canterbury and Thanet mainstream schools had no speech and language therapy provision, despite demonstrating a need for it.
I turn now to the performance of health authorities in helping speech-impaired children and young people. Unlike education authorities, health authorities have only a general duty to provide services. They have no specific duty to individual children; indeed, there is evidence that some health authorities, such as Stafford, are refusing to provide any speech and language therapy at all to children over the age of eight.
As the Minister knows, the "NHS Efficiency Index" encourages health authorities to spend on health care items which will most obviously demonstrate a return. That urges DHAs towards provision of acute services and discourages them from investing in community services such as paediatric speech and language therapy. Health authorities know that LEAs are the providers of last resort and thus have little incentive to provide services themselves. Fundholding general practitioners are also purchasers of speech and language therapy, a role for which many will have been inadequately prepared.
AFASIC can find no other instance in which a health authority is responsible for meeting specified educational needs and, on the association's behalf, I now ask the Government to clarify beyond doubt who is responsible for ensuring the provision of speech and language therapy services to children of school age.
In Scotland the education authorities have been allocated funds in the local authority settlement to purchase therapy from the health boards. The Government


have indicated that this is working well and I believe that it could serve as a useful model for England and Wales. I suspect that the Minister, who has been very generous in responding to points that have been raised in the debate, is rather envious of the arrangements in Scotland and would like, as many of us would, to see them repeated here. I ask the Government also to commit themselves, first, to monitoring the implementation of the code of practice with particular reference to speech and language therapy; and secondly, to revisit the code no later than 1996 to put into place any amendments which may have been shown by the monitoring process to be necessary.
Not to give speech-impaired children the right help, in the right place and at the right time is to endanger their future. In some cases, it can lead to a lifetime of preventable handicap and dependency for children whose claim to the attention of the House ought not to need emphasising to Ministers. If they want to make certain that the code of practice succeeds in safeguarding such children, they can do no better than to keep in close and continuing rapport with AFASIC about its implementation and to respond positively now to the association's concerns.

5 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the code of practice. I do not want to reiterate everything that hon. Members have already said, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that I warmly welcome the code. I know that much consultation has gone into the document. As we are under pressure of time, I shall simply go quickly through one or two matters which are of concern to me and which I hope my hon. Friend will monitor as the code is implemented.
Many hon. Members mentioned the question of speech therapy. I shall repeat what a speech therapist in my constituency told me in my surgery: because of the introduction of care in the community, the peripatetic speech therapists who work primarily under the umbrella of health find that they are spending a lot more time travelling to people's homes to assist stroke victims who necessarily need help early after they are discharged from hospital. That is taking up a lot of their time—time which must often be shared with children who need speech therapy. Although I welcome the increased number of hours that speech therapists are giving nationally, I suspect that they are being asked to cover a much broader area. That area must be examined.
I certainly welcome the partnership with parents. I hope that my hon. Friend will monitor carefully circumstances where parents elect the person alongside them, especially at the appeal stage, perhaps to have knowledge of a particular disability. That has often been a problem. In the statementing process, there has often been a conflict between educational psychologists and clinical psychologists. Often, the clinical psychologist has a much greater knowledge of a specific disability, especially if it is clinically based. I hope that the presence of psychologists, if necessary, will be recognised when they stand alongside parents and represent them.
Many hon. Members mentioned resources, especially with regard to disabilities. As autism has been mentioned

by Labour Members, I should perhaps declare an interest as an unpaid special counsellor to the National Autistic Society. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been in correspondence with him on several aspects of the subject.
When we consider resources and the anticipated number of children with special educational needs, including that segment of children who require statements of need, we are still working on the excellent report of Baroness Warnock in the 1970s, which was put into statute in the Education Act 1981. Although Baroness Warnock mentioned autism and dyslexia in her report—I have made this point to my hon. Friend before—those two disabilities were not in the final list at the back of the report where she identifies areas where statements of need may be necessary.
Hon. Members mentioned the figures relating to both disabilities. I do not think that resources have increased because there are more people with dyslexia or autism; I simply think that our awareness of the two conditions is much more enhanced now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. In terms of resourcing and meeting the need, it is likely that Baroness Warnock's figures need reappraisal in the 1990s in terms of the scale of the problem.
I recognise that for local education authorities, the Government and even schools, it is something of a Pandora's box to take the lid off and say that the area of need is much greater than the figure on which we have been working since the 1970s. In aggregating statistics as a result of the much more strictly run statementing and special needs process, I hope that we will be able to identify the scale of need of all the categories of children.

Mr. Forth: I do not think that we should attempt to put things in boxes in that way at this stage—we have rightly resisted that temptation. However, I recognise the desire of people from specific needs groups to have their requirements identified and recognised.
First, I simply ask my hon. Friend to accept that the Audit Commission, in its excellent report about two years ago, did not identify a shortfall of money; it identified the fact that the money was not always efficiently used, and the code will be a major step forward in that direction. Secondly, we should recognise the variation in existing LEA practice and existing special needs provision. There is no indication that there is a lack of money; there is an indication of an unacceptable variation in the way in which the money is brought to bear.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall make two final points. The first relates to the money side. We must be careful when using the Warnock statistics, because LEAs which reach a 2 per cent. target of statementing of special needs feel that they have reached the target. I suggest that that is a somewhat artificial level and that other children below that 2 per cent. may need statementing. As the process is now being speeded up because of the six-month rule, there may be a tendency in some areas not to statement children who otherwise deserve it.
My final point relates to teacher training. Recently, I met many dyslexic children and I was horrified when they told me that teachers in their school referred to them as thick. When it comes to in-house training for existing teachers, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have a long way to go in spreading throughout the


education establishment the message that dyslexic children are not thick, and that existing teachers require training in special needs as much as new teachers.

Mr. Don Foster: This is an important debate. As time is short, I intend to keep my remarks brief. I join hon. Members who have already spoken in welcoming the code of practice, and pay a warm tribute to all the organisations that took part in the consultation exercise.
Perhaps unusually from the Opposition Benches, I pay a warm tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools because I believe that his personal interest and involvement in the issue led to the code of practice being a model of clarity that has achieved considerable support across the political spectrum and from all those involved in the world of education.
As the Minister admitted, the code of practice is long awaited, arising, as it does, out of the Warnock report and the Education Acts 1981 and 1983. Nevertheless, it is now with us and, as I said, has received a great deal of praise from many people because it distils the highest aspirations of local education authorities and includes many examples of best practice as regards special educational needs work up and down the country. The code rightly stresses the issue of the continuum of need, and for the first time clearly delineates the responsibilities as between individual schools and local education authorities. That will go some way at least towards resolving some of the problems that local education authorities face with regard to the pressures of statementing.
The code of practice is welcomed by governors, head teachers, teachers and local education authorities; I suspect that that renders it almost unique among documents produced by the Government over the past 15 years, certainly in the field of education. I welcome it for that reason, and I hope that it will be the first of many such documents.
Perhaps the main reason why the code has been so successful is that the Minister and the Government listened to the views of different professionals; that is especially true of the way in which they have adopted the concept of special educational needs as a whole school issue and accepted the case for a five-stage model. The Government have rightly incorporated throughout the document the theme of partnership and parental involvement. They have also, perhaps for the first time, recognised the importance of listening to the views of pupils.
I said that I would be brief and I shall not rehearse many of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber because it is important that the Minister has an opportunity to respond. I shall merely pick up briefly two or three points that I do not think hon. Members have touched on.
Mention has been made of the concern about the four-year period between one OFSTED report and another. The Minister may wish to comment on the suggestion that, while there is a requirement for governors to refer in their annual reports to their special educational needs policies and to the allocation of resources, a clear statement should be incorporated within those reports of what action has been taken each year following an OFSTED report to move towards meeting any criticisms that may have been raised.

Mr. Forth: In a sense, I can do better than that. We anticipate that OFSTED will prepare a first interim report

on the operation of the code in respect of a limited sample of schools as early as March 1995 and will follow that with a more extensive report in December 1995. We will not have to wait for the four-year cycle. In addition, OFSTED will be concerned with giving overviews about the effectiveness of the code early on, and will do so more regularly than on a four-year cycle.

Mr. Foster: I am sure that many people will welcome what the Minister has said, but I do not think that it takes away from my point about the way in which individual schools meet the best practice and guidance contained within the code.
There is one respect in which the Minister will not give the House the satisfaction which I, for one, would like. The importance of early identification of special educational needs has been quite rightly included within the code; reference has been made to dyslexia, autism and other aspects of special educational need. I say gently to the Minister that one new practice that the Government could introduce that would help dramatically in the early identification of special educational needs is the widespread provision of nursery education. I shall leave the Minister to ponder that.
Let me make a brief point about speech therapists. In addition to the points that other hon. Members have raised about who is responsible for identifying which speech therapist should provide assistance to whom, and from where the money should come—the point about the shortage of speech therapists was made forcefully by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others—there exists the further concern that the move towards the establishment of more and more national health service trusts is fragmenting the speech therapy service and is beginning to remove any notion of a career structure within speech therapy. That in turn may have implications for the recruitment of speech therapists in the future.
My final point concerns the crucial issue of resources. The Minister has said that there is no indication of a lack of money. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that it was absolutely crucial that the necessary resources must be there. There is a mismatch between those two statements. All the evidence that I have seen, when visiting many schools and talking to many people, suggests that there are not sufficient resources currently available to meet the special educational needs of pupils in this country. I am influenced by the evidence provided by local authority associations, which suggest that the implementation of the code in all its aspects may cost an additional £100 million.
The Minister has said that some new money will be found, and I am grateful for his statement about those amounts. However, if I have added the figures up correctly—perhaps the Minister will give a summary of the various amounts in his winding-up speech—the total amount of new money, or at least money which will go to special educational needs which is not going to them at present, is less than £20 million.
We need to hear what the real figure is and whether we are talking about new money or money taken from elsewhere. Although the code is very welcome, it represents only one half of the solution: without sufficient resources to back it up, those aspirations will never be met.

Mr. Peter Butler: My intention is not only to be brief, which is relatively easy, but to be succinct, which is more of a challenge.
I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the code of practice, which is clearly and successfully the result of an extremely wide consultation. It is an example of a case in which those consulted have taken the opportunity to exploit the consultation, and that does not always happen.
My interest in special education goes back to my involvement in the founding of a school for what were then termed maladjusted children, who are now known as emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. I gained a postgraduate teaching qualification and was involved in the running of that school for some 17 years, until two years ago. On the basis of that experience, I give great credit to all who are involved at every level of special education, which is one of most challenging ways imaginable of earning a living.
I have been concerned about three aspects of statementing over the past few years. My first concern is about the delay in starting the process: from my observation of one particular school, I can say that the average age for statementing—and therefore the average age of placement—has risen by three or four years during the past few years. Frankly, that means that children are statemented and placed almost too late to benefit from the proper effects of special education. I am pleased to see that that matter is covered by the trigger arrangements for stage 1, and I welcome that. I remain concerned, however, about a situation in which a parental expression of concern does not lead to an assessment, which leaves the parent with little recourse.
My second concern is about the length of time that is spent in the process of preparing the statement. I congratulate the Minister on that matter, as it has been fully covered by the code.
My third area of concern is the recent growth of non-specific or generic statementing. A simple conclusion that a child needs additional help in the classroom is almost a futile exercise and gives no reassurance to parents, little guidance to teachers and little hope to the child. I am pleased to note that the draft statement, and the lay-out of parts 3 and 4 of the former statement which is attached as the appendix to the draft code, deals extremely thoroughly with that question. I welcome that without any reservations.
Despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), I do not perceive an even-handed approach to maintained or non-maintained schools. I see a clear desire for children to be placed within a maintained school—whether it is maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special—rather than in a non-maintained or independent school. I greatly regret that. The document seems to assume that a non-maintained or independent placement will arise only from a successful representation made by an unusually well-informed and persistent parent.The notice to parents confirms that in its wording on the right to make such representations, which is included in paragraph 5. It is not even mentioned in paragraph 3.38 of the draft code, which says only that, on receipt of a proposed statement, parents have a right to

state their preference for the maintained school that their child should attend, and to make representations to and hold meetings with the LEA.
Although the ability to suggest that the school should be independent or non-maintained is buried within the draft notice to parents, it is not brought out within the draft code of practice itself.

Mr. Forth: The debate was conducted at some length in 1993 in the confines of the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, as it then was. For better or worse, we took a decision about the relative merits of the maintained and non-maintained sectors, the position of parents and so on. The code reflects faithfully what is in the Act—and, since it is now in the Act, it is difficult for it not to do so. We must now hope that parents will take the clues and hints given in both the code and the Act and make the best possible use of them. I am confident that they will be able to do so.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. Of course, the method of funding of the school is irrelevant. The only question is whether the school can help, and possibly where the school is geographically situated. That is particularly important because, even with a specific learning disadvantage or disability, the need to recognise, for example, the effect of the peer group within which the child would be educated if he was accepted at that school is vital to the achievement of success. That is recognised in paragraph 4:41, which says:
The placement must be appropriate to the child's needs, while also compatible with the interests of other children already in the school and"—
the final part is slightly worrying—
with the efficient use of the LEA's resources.
Many of us saw during the 1980s what were termed "out-to-in" policies. As well as not being placed, children were removed from independent non-maintained schools out of county and placed in maintained schools within county. That was often based on imaginative accounting to demonstrate that the in-county school was cheaper, and therefore represented a more efficient use of LEA resources. I am concerned that that practice should not be repeated or continued in future. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the suggestion, which I think I read in his response to me, that the matter will be watched carefully.
I rose to make a small but important point and to give an overall welcome for an excellent draft code.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I declare an interest in so far as I am the father of a small child with Down's syndrome. I hope that, in an essentially English and Welsh debate, I can make some comments which reflect the Scottish experience and offer comments that are relevant to the whole of Britain. I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the much more authoritative speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler).
Before my son was born a little more than three years ago, the impression had been borne in on me strongly, in constituency surgeries and so on that, of all the people who came to see me, those who were most oppressed and psychologically battered were those who had the responsibility of caring for people with learning difficulties


and disabilities or physical handicaps. I am sure that that is the experience of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The phrase that was used over and over again was, "You have to fight for everything you get." Exactly as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, if a child had persistent parents who knew their way through the system, they might get what the child needed. If the parents did not have that persistence or knowledge, the outcome could be very different.
Since I have had more personal involvement in such matters, I have had greater cause to reflect on that. Anything that the code of practice does to improve the lot of parents and children across the economic and social range is welcome. The proof of the code's value will be what actually happens over the years and particularly whether the necessary resources are made available to meet the aspirations of the code.
Since my son was born, I have realised that, although it is not unreasonable to expect that a Rolls-Royce system should exist from the cradle to the grave for the relatively small number of children who are born with special needs and will obviously have learning difficulties, the reality is very different. I was initially struck by the extent to which people are left on their own to find out what is best for the child in the early stages.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said in a slightly different context, there is an awful lot going on in the world. A lot of research is being done in other countries, where exactly the same questions are being asked. There has been a serious failure to bring together all that knowledge and experience to create a well-defined strategy for meeting the special educational needs of the various categories of children with special needs.
I intend to limit my remarks to Down's syndrome children because they are the only ones about whom I have any claim to know enough to take up the time of the House. I shall speak particularly about the assessment of pre-school children. I note that the code sets out a worthy aspiration. Indeed, it is firm on one point. It says that the local education authority may make an assessment of a child's educational needs
if the parent consents to it, and must make such an assessment if the parent requests it.
It goes on to state:
Such an assessment shall be in such a manner as the authority consider appropriate.
But then, crucially, it states:
Following such an assessment, the LEA may make and maintain a statement of the child's special educational needs".
Why is that "may" rather than "must"? Once the need has been defined, why should it not be a duty on local education authorities to maintain a record of those needs?
The Scottish experience is of some relevance. Some time ago, I asked the Minister's Scottish counterpart, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) what was the statutory requirement in Scotland for identifying needs and maintaining a record. I then asked what was the practice in each of the education authorities. The answer disappointed me a little. Although it said, accurately, that the LEA may keep a record of needs from the age of two, it said that the information on what the education authorities actually did was not held centrally.
It did not seem unreasonable to expect that, having set out what local authorities were expected to do, the Government would keep a check on what a dozen

education authorities did in practice. So I wrote to the 12 education authorities in Scotland. With great courtesy, all 12 replied. My point is that the practice differs widely, even among the small number of authorities covering Scotland.
In Tayside, most records of needs are opened at 11 to 13. The reply continued:
The next largest significant activity is at the point of entry to primary school at age 4–5.
The third largest significant activity in opening records for pupils was at age two. So age two is the third largest group. The reply from the director of education of Lothian states:
In practice, very few children are recorded pre-school.
The reply from Shetland was
I cannot say that the Record of Needs is initiated at age 2.
In Borders regional council records are most commonly initiated between the ages of three and five. However, Central region said:
we would anticipate identifying children with learning difficulties by the age of 2.
Grampian similarly said:
Referral can take place at any age from 0–6 years but most such children attend initially at between 2–3 years.
Strathclyde said:
this authority opens Records of Needs for children with special educational needs from age 2.
I have rushed through those examples. The point is clear that, despite provisions on the statute book that the education authority may keep a record of needs from the age of two, the practice is widely different even among the dozen education authorities in Scotland. In many cases, the practice is resource-driven. I have no doubt that in others it is the product of a judgment by the education authority that that is the best thing to do. What concerns and surprises me is that there is not a well-defined national view on what is the best practice drawn from international research and experience of what is the best thing to do for such children.
I agree with hon. Members who have said that the passage in the code of practice on speech therapy is vague and disappointing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the Scottish experience. It is not quite so rosy as that. Possibly the formula is right—the education authority purchases from the health authority—but unless the resources are there, the provision will not be there either. I emphasise the importance of the availability of speech therapy to pre-school children, who are my particular concern. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most important facilities with which children with Down's syndrome can be provided.
I do not want to introduce any note of controversy into an otherwise harmonious debate. However, the Minister had something to say on the matter and I am sure that he knows better than I do that he was taken strongly to task for his words in an article in Therapy Weekly, which stated:
The remarks made by a government minister on the provision of speech therapy for children have been slammed by the College of Speech and Language Therapists. The CSLT has described as 'appalling' comments made by junior education minister
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools.
The Minister called into question whether pre-school speech therapy was an educational provision and whether it had educational value and should therefore be considered in the context of education. The College of Speech and Language Therapists found the draft code disappointing in that it missed an ideal opportunity to state whether health or education services should provide speech and language therapy.
If nothing else comes from my contribution to the debate I hope that it will at least have been made clear that it would be unthinkable for my little boy and many children like him not to have access to speech therapy from the youngest possible age. So much of the progress that he and others in his position have made is due to the availability of speech therapy as of right. That availability is relevant to their education and educational prospects.
The headline of the article in Therapy Weekly is "Therapists reject minister's claims". I hope that the Minister will make it unequivocally clear that he recognises the need for speech therapy for children with special educational needs from the youngest possible age.
In the purchasing relationship, whereby an education authority buys services from a health authority, a difficulty is arising because unless a record of need is kept, purchasing may not take place. Purchasing is based on the existence of such a record and if it does not exist, children are in danger of losing out. It is even more essential, therefore, that such a record is kept from the age of two or the earliest possible age. Certainly, with Down's syndrome children there is not the slightest doubt, from the day of birth, that they will have special educational needs. Such records must be opened in every authority.
In deference to other hon. Members who want to speak in other debates I shall limit my remarks to that. I sympathise with the problems in England and Wales. Pray God we are never dependent in Scotland on the decisions of hundreds of boards of governors and small committees here and there rather than on the decision of 12 education authorities. Each will have many competing priorities and for many people this priority plays no part in their calculations. Patchwork provision is bound to result. We have to have the muscle of Government and of large education authorities with the resources behind them if the proper facilities and provisions are to be made available to a relatively small number of our fellow citizens.
I have no doubt that enormous good will exists in the House. Every hon. Member has experienced similar problems in his or her surgery, as I said at the beginning of my speech. Everyone is in favour of the best possible provision for children with special educational needs. As attendance here today shows, however, it is not exactly a high political priority. Someone has to make it a high

priority, and it will be one only if the Government take the lead and put in the necessary resources to back up that commitment.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to intervene but briefly and apologise for not having been here for the entire debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the great interest that he has taken in the subject and for coming to my constituency to address a meeting of parents of children with special educational needs. He was able to encourage them to press their cases more strongly.
The emphasis of the Government's document is that local authorities will have the responsibility for deciding priorities and should make such decisions. Parents should get together and put pressure on councils.
Councils need to press ahead promptly with the preparation of statements. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that Bolton council has been reported to the ombudsman and criticised for excessive delay that occurred in the preparation of statements? I hope that my hon. Friend will remind local authorities of the need to act more promptly. The document calls for the identification of special needs as promptly as possible.
There is much to be gained from parents getting together to form action groups so that they can bring more pressure to bear on councils to review their priorities and give them the proper emphasis.
At a local level, there is a constant call for the Government to decide matters centrally rather than leave such difficult decisions to be decided locally. I believe that these priorities should be decided locally. Substantial amounts of money are provided in local authorities' education budgets and they should decide the priorities in the light of local needs and of listening to parents.
I welcomed the contributions made by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am glad that we have had this debate and I add my praise to that of other hon. Members for the document that my hon. Friend the Minister prepared.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATO Headquarters

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

Mr. Hanley: As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be appropriate to consider the two orders together.
The first of the orders amends a 1965 Order in Council, which designates headquarters and a defence organisation for the purposes of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, while the second amends a 1965 Order in Council, which provides for the application, to visiting forces and international headquarters, of law applicable to home forces.
Before I describe the effect of the orders, it may be helpful if I explain the background to the changes in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command structure which make them necessary.
The area covered by the North Atlantic treaty is divided among three major NATO commands or MNCs—European, Atlantic and Channel—and a regional planning group for Canada and the United States. Below that structure is a hierarchy of subordinate commands: major subordinate commands, or MSCs, principal subordinate commands, or PSCs, and sub-principal subordinate commands. Hon. Members will be aware that the NATO organisational structure lends itself to the adoption of many acronyms, and I will try to avoid quoting too many of them this evening.
A number of adjustments to that structure are being made to reflect the profound changes that have taken place in the strategic environment during the past few years, and to meet the changing needs of the alliance in the mid to late 1990s. As a first step, NATO Defence Ministers decided in December 1991 that the major NATO commands should be reduced from three to two—European and Atlantic. It was agreed that arrangements in the Atlantic command should be left largely unchanged, since they remained appropriate to the alliance's continuing maritime task.
Ministers also decided to reduce the number of major subordinate commands in Allied Command Europe—ACE—from four to three. Those would be responsible for the southern, central and north-western regions.
Those decisions paved the way for detailed planning during 1992 and subsequent implementation. Last year saw the completion of the changes in central region. Under the old structure, the boundary between Allied Forces Central Europe—AFCENT—and Allied Forces Northern Europe—AFNORTH—passed through Schleswig Holstein. The boundary has been moved north, and the central region now includes all of Germany and Denmark. The Allied Forces South—AFSOUTH—structure has been agreed, and is being implemented. Hon. Members may

wish to note that I am placing in the Library of the House some maps and an organisational chart outlining these structures.
Later this year, the command changes affecting the United Kingdom will come into being. The post of Commander-in-Chief Channel—CINCHAN—lapses on 30 June, and the headquarters of Allied Forces Northern Europe in Kolsaas, Norway, closes. The following day, reorganisation of the major subordinate command structure in Allied Command Europe will be completed, when the headquarters of the new north western area is activated. That area will comprise the land mass of the United Kingdom, for the first time, and Norway and the sea and air areas surrounding them.
The new NATO headquarters for this area, to be designated headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces North Western Europe—HQ CINCAFNORTHWEST—will be situated at High Wycombe, and will be commanded by a British officer. At the same time, two new principal subordinate command headquarters will be activated in the UK: the headquarters of the Commander Allied Air Forces North Western Europe—HQ COMAIRNORTHWEST—also at High Wycombe, and the headquarters of the Commander Allied Naval Forces North Western Europe—HQ COMNAVNORTHWEST—at Northwood, which will assume Commander-in-Chief Channel's current responsibilities. Some 330 alliance personnel will be located at the new headquarters in the United Kingdom, of whom 130 will be from the United Kingdom.
To reflect those changes, it is necessary to amend the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965 to designate in United Kingdom law the new headquarters. We are also taking this opportunity to designate the NATO airborne early warning force headquarters in Mons, Belgium, and the NATO E-3A component in Geilenkirchen, Germany, whose visiting staff are treated as members of an international military headquarters, but have not yet been formally recognised as having that status under United Kingdom law. The purpose of the first order is therefore to establish the status of the various headquarters and visiting forces.
The second order, amending the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965 provides for the application to the visiting forces and the headquarters, of the law applicable to home forces.
The changes I have described will effectively complete the restructuring of NATO's command structure agreed at the end of 1991. They will help meet our objectives for a lighter, more flexible, command structure, which will enable the alliance to respond more quickly and effectively to the increasingly challenging and diverse demands of the European security situation.
The changes have already led to considerable savings in manpower. In particular, they have allowed the United Kingdom to reduce its overall contribution by more than 30 per cent., mainly from the headquarters in Allied Command Europe.
There are clear advantages to the establishment of a new major subordinate command—MSC—in the United Kingdom. We will retain significant influence at an increasingly important level of command within the alliance's military structure—a level which we expect to play a leading role in NATO's new force structure.
There will also be cost savings from home basing for the United Kingdom complement of staff and economic benefits to the High Wycombe area from the presence of visiting forces. Furthermore, United Kingdom firms have benefited from work on the construction and fitting out of the new headquarters, the cost of which will be some £l2 million from NATO funds.
The NATO summit in January charted the next steps for the adaptation of the alliance, and we can expect the new headquarters in the United Kingdom to play an important role in giving practical effect to the initiatives agreed there. This will help to keep the United Kingdom at the forefront of work to ensure that the alliance remains centre stage in European security arrangements in the years ahead.
I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the reason for, and significance of, the two orders. I accept that they are linked, and that it makes sense to examine them together. Orders of this nature would normally be considered upstairs in Committee, and it is only the ending of the parliamentary cold war that allows us to have the opportunity to examine them in the House.
As the Minister has said, the orders are consequential and of no great significance. What is significant, however, is what they tell us about the context of the adaptation of NATO to post-cold war realities, and what they reveal about the changed status of the United Kingdom within the alliance. The weight given to our role in the immediate post-war settlement in 1949, at the time of the formation of NATO, has evolved into its current status. I shall dwell briefly on those changes, and pose certain questions to the Minister.
In terms of NATO and post-cold war realities, the organisational chart, which existed in 1949, has already been set out by the Minister. The current integrated military command structures under the military committee stems, largely unchanged, from the 1949 structure with the three major commands, Allied Command Channel, Allied Command Atlantic, and Allied Command Europe. As the Minister has pointed out, they are divided into major subordinate commands, and, within those, principal subordinate commands.
The current MSCs of ACE, which are commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are Allied Forces North, Allied Forces Central, Allied Forces South, and the United Kingdom Defence Region.
The end of the cold war led to the need for a new NATO strategy, and, in turn, to the need for a rationalisation of the NATO military command structure. The criteria of that review were economic and political. As the Minister has said, financial and personnel savings have been made, perhaps as part of the peace dividend and because the lower alliance force levels reflect the pressure throughout the alliance for less expenditure on defence.
The political significance of the changes stems from the united Germany, which is no longer split between two MSCs—Schlewsig Holstein in AFNORTH and the rest of Germany within AFCENT. One consequence is that all NATO forces on German soil will be under German command.
The history of the NATO review, which has led to the two orders, has been set out by the Minister and is well known, but the dates are significant. In May 1991, Defence Ministers met in Sicily to examine the package of changes, and in December 1991, the Defence Planning Committee agreed the consensus package.
The chief casualty of the rationalisation is the elimination of Allied Command Channel, a major command led by a British admiral and based at Northwood. I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's argument that British weight in terms of personnel will remain in tact. In the new context, ACCHAN obviously had to go once its new responsibilities were divided.
What is significant is that, after reorganisation, the two remaining senior command posts are now held by Americans. Is that wholly consistent with the current spirit within the alliance? I understand, however, the need to ensure the full commitment of the United States to the alliance. General Joulwan of the United States has only recently been appointed.
On the weight and the role of the United Kingdom within the alliance, the second key change is the extension of ACE to include the United Kingdom mainland for the first time. That makes sense when judged according to the time of the original settlement, but it is a significant change, as it reflects the different significant role that Britain played in the late 1940s. In turn, the number of MSCs within ACE has been reduced from four to three, with the replacement of UKAIR and AFNORTH by AFNORTHWEST.
The headquarters of AFNORTHWEST is at High Wycombe; hence the need for the order. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to ensure that, so far as possible, there will always be a United Kingdom commander of the United Kingdom's land or air forces within the United Kingdom? I understand that there are to be roughly 250 posts at High Wycombe, but I note that the figure that the Minister now gives for the costs of the operation—I think it was £12 million—is slightly greater than the sum that was given to the Defence Committee.
I shall end with a number of questions for consideration by the Minister. One is the relevance of those changes to, and their consistency with, the broad thrust of current NATO thinking, especially as set out in the NATO Brussels communiqué in January—the new move towards a European defence identity and the way in which the new United States administration is more prepared—indeed, seems to be almost enthusiastic—for a greater European contribution.
The changes that led to the orders stem from before May 1991. Indeed, one can probably go back more than three years. The Defence Ministers who met in Sicily in May 1991 reflected the view at that time of the post-cold-war changes and the institutional framework that was relevant to those changes. There has now been, as I have mentioned, a greater evolution, especially under the new administration in the US.
It would be interesting for the Government to reflect on the extent to which the current package of proposals reflects the new thrust of policy as it was enshrined in the Brussels communiqué in January, or whether what the House is now presented with is part of a time warp—that which appeared relevant and appropriate three years ago.
I shall not detain the House by discussing the proposed structure for the Baltic, but it is obviously a compromise, based more on political than military needs. There is an


artificial division of responsibility between land and maritime forces—two different commands. That makes no sense, at least in managerial terms.
The inclusion of the NATO airborne early warning force in the two orders presumably also relates to the reorganisation of the NATO commands. For legal reasons, the extension of Allied Command Europe to cover mainland Britain may mean that its executive agency, the NAEWF, may require a new status in the UK. I wonder whether there is another reason—the history of the change—but that may effectively be caused by the need to remedy a legal omission.
It would be wrong to survey the unfortunate decision to proceed, not with a jointly funded airborne warning and communication system squadron, but with a national AWACS squadron with the early warning version of Nimrod, a project that was cancelled in 1986 and which was disastrous for the British taxpayer. As I understand the position, from the mid-1980s the NAEWF was regularly deployed to the UK to help provide early warning cover for UK airspace until the RAF Boeing E—5 squadron became operational in 1991. That is, the early warning system used RAF airfields, even though not covered by the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, so that is in any event putting right a legal omission, bringing into legal form what was already the practice, for a period at least.
Finally, it is fair to say that the reorganisation of NATO headquarters, which is due to be implemented at the beginning of July, may already, to some extent, have become outdated because the merger of AFNORTHWEST and AFCENT might now be possible. I note that, in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which was published last month, the Government said:
In the longer term, it may also be necessary to look again at NATO's higher military structure to ensure that it remains suited to the new forces and the new tasks.
Finally, I pose the question whether, not in the longer term but in the shorter term, as we adjust to the position in the cold war with the new views of the US administration, we might need to consider a structure which, in spite of those orders, may already be somewhat outdated.

Mr. Bruce George: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I was attending another meeting. I shall not detain the House for long.
The wonder of the alliance in 1949 was that it was formed at all. In spite of the threat, Europe and America were, with rare exceptions, if not adversaries, at loggerheads. There had been in Europe a strong tradition of neutralism. Countries such as the United Kingdom were used to being alone.
As a result of wise statesmanship and Ernest Bevin—who was probably one of the wisest of the statesmen—and as a result of a little bit of skullduggery on the part of the State Department and the US Congress, the Americans were committed to a presence in Europe and committed to NATO in such a way that probably very few congressmen and senators who signed up for the agreement were aware of what they were letting themselves in for.
In spite of the vicissitudes of the cold war—one suspects that the internal problems in NATO were in many ways greater than the external threat—the alliance held together. The deal was not an equal partnership between

the United States and Europe, because the US was immensely strong militarily and economically, and Europe was prostrate economically and had very few armed forces available to meet a potential threat from the Soviet union.
Nevertheless, in that initial bargain, we had one of the major NATO commands. We had Allied Command Channel, on a par virtually, although not entirely, with the other two major NATO commanders, both American. Therefore, organisationally, if there was not a balance between Europe and north America in terms of senior military personnel, at least Europe was able to say that we had a major commander, alongside an American admiral and an American general. That situation prevailed until quite recently.
Following the cold war changes, many critics in the House hoped that NATO would disappear. When the Warsaw pact collapsed, there were people who wished that NATO would collapse in empathy with the Warsaw pact. They thought that NATO was no longer relevant in the new peace environment that we were entering.
However, NATO showed that it had longevity; that it was not simply a military alliance but a political alliance. It made fundamental changes to strategy and reduction in forces and in the command structure, which I generally support. The changes of creating a new command structure, a rapid reaction corps and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and, more recently, in the summit in January, the establishment of the partnership for peace and the combined joint task forces, show that NATO has resilience.
What worries me slightly—I do not wish to appear too partisan at this stage in what is obviously if not a bipartisan approach, at least major agreement between both Front Benches—is that in some ways I very much regret the downgrading of the British contribution. Northwood is no longer to be regarded on a par with Mons and with Norfolk, Virginia.
Europe as well as Britain has been downgraded. It is wrong that the two senior military commanders of NATO—SACEUR and SACLANT—are American. I am a committed Atlanticist and desperately hope that the European Union will develop further. Although I want greater co-ordination in foreign policy and perhaps a common foreign policy, greater co-ordination in security and perhaps a common security policy, I shall need persuading that, at this stage in its history, Europe is capable of developing a common defence policy, especially if it is to the detriment of NATO.
When discussing future command arrangements, I hope that, as the Western European Union and the European Union grow closer, they will not see as part of their new macho status the requirement to supplant an alliance which has held us in safety over the decades and will play a considerable role in the future. In the new international environment, NATO will be as important in the future as it has been in the past.
The downgrading of the British dimension is a consequence of the downgrading of our armed forces. If, in the space of a decade, the number of Royal Navy frigates and destroyers will drop from between 50 and 60 to between 30 and 40, we shall cut less of a dash in NATO. Is that a reason why we no longer occupy a major position within NATO's command structure and Allied Command Channel? That relates directly to what we are discussing.
Is the fact that we can no longer provide adequate forces the reason why the command structure was altered? I am


worried that Northwood no longer has a British admiral who meets on a par with his American counterparts. If defence expenditure falls further, we shall lose, if not our primacy, our position in other NATO commands, which will diminish our influence in the transatlantic alliance and NATO.
NATO has made considerable changes to its command structures. The way in which the United Kingdom's headquarters are altered reflects the drop in defence expenditure and the need for greater efficiency. I fear that the goal of greater efficiency will not be achieved by reducing forces.
At some stage in the near future, as the balance of the threat moves from the northern and central regions to the old southern region, the southern flank, the southern guard and the southern arc of crisis, Naples will be infinitely more important in dealing with problems in the Maghreb, the Balkans, the middle east and the Gulf. At what stage will NATO consider re-establishing a command on a par with Norfolk and Mons, concentrating not on a command in NATO subordinate to SACEUR, at AFSOUTH Naples, but on a separate and equal command?
I welcome the legal changes that must be made. The Select Committee on Defence considered them in 1992. It is ironic that the House should be considering them more than two years later. Clearly, the changes must be supported. I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this important issue, although it may have been slightly tangential to the subject in hand.

Mr. Hanley: With permission, I shall answer briefly a few of the points that have been raised.
In answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Commander UK Land Forces will always remain the UK commander. But the Commander-in-Chief of AFNORTHWEST could come from another nation at some subsequent time.
On the United States' MNCs, there is increasing European representation throughout the alliance's command structure. I do not have the relevant figures to hand, but I am willing to write to the hon. Member for Swansea, East and explain the numbers.
He also queried the cost of £12 million for High Wycombe. The cost of the military budget is expected to be some £7.6 million, and the UK share is fixed at just under 22 per cent., which is some £1.7 million. The cost to

the infrastructure budget is expected to be some £4.2 million, and the UK share is some £900,000. The difficulty may have been the fact that the total cost to NATO budgets of establishing the headquarters is £12 million. I am not sure whether the Select Committee received different figures, but those are the definitive ones.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Baltic overlap. It is sensible to allow SACEUR the operational flexibility to select the MSC best suited to control joint operations on a case-by-case basis. That is the position that we are in. I shall not comment on some of the other points that he made.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made an important contribution. The White Paper made it clear that the UK's defence is based on NATO. It also clearly set out decisions reached at the NATO summit, which are shaping our defence and security policies. The summit reaffirmed our commitment to the transatlantic link, which is the bedrock of NATO, but it also supported the development of the European security and defence identity to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance.
May I refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East? We are now catching up to 1991, and a lot of water has gone under many bridges since then. This, at least, is now the command structure, and we must let it bed down. In the meantime, the combined joint task force concept was introduced at the last NATO summit. That is designed to allow European countries to act under the auspices of WEU in circumstances where they perceive a need for action, but the north Americans, for whatever reason, choose not to be involved.
The new headquarters at AFNORTHWEST is a good example. The European or British commander and strong European representation in the headquarters will mean that it will be capable of undertaking NATO and/or WEU operations.
The description of the multilateral dimension of our security in the White Paper is not a departure, but rather a reflection of the response of the allies to the changing strategic environment. I am therefore pleased that the House welcomes the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.—[Mr. Hanley.]

Orders of the Day — Ro-Ro Passenger Ships

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I beg to move,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.
The regulations extend the requirement of higher survivability standards to all existing ro-ro passenger ships when operating to or from ports in the United Kingdom. Similar provisions are already in force for new ships—those built after 29 April 1990, by virtue of the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.
The draft regulations are required to be made by affirmative procedure by the terms of section 21(1)(c) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, the enabling power, and by section 49 of that Act which sets out the parliamentary procedure for section 21 orders; both sections were modified by section 11 of the Safety at Sea Act 1986. In summary, the requirements of the enabling legislation are that orders applying to foreign ships must be made by affirmative procedure unless the requirement is the subject of international agreement.
Conclusions of an extensive research programme, sponsored by the Department of Transport following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster have confirmed that the standard of survivability introduced for new ships provides adequate protection against rapid capsize, after sustaining collision damage, while operating in moderate seas.
A steering committee set up to monitor the ro-ro ferry safety research programme, and made up of representatives from all sides of the shipping industry, recommended that the higher standard of damage stability imposed for new ships should be applied to all existing ro-ro ships. To that end, the committee recommended that agreement be sought in the International Maritime Organisation; if that proved unsuccessful, European maritime administrations should be approached with a view to a regional solution. The committee suggested that if both approaches failed, the United Kingdom should consider unilateral action.
Accepting the committee's recommendations, the Department proposed that the higher standard to be applied to existing ships should be the standard introduced internationally for new ships. The recognised procedure for introducing international safety measures is to submit proposals to the IMO; it is fully supported by the United Kingdom. Despite lengthy discussions in the IMO, however, the application of that higher standard to existing ro-ro ships was not accepted.
Having exhausted all the avenues for international agreement, my Department—with officials from the European Commission and member states of the European Union, together with Norway and Sweden—opened discussions that have led to a regional agreement. The introduction of the regulations upholds the United Kingdom's obligation to comply with that agreement, and will ensure that ro-ro passenger ships travelling to and from United Kingdom ports comply with the standard of survivability that was previously restricted to new ships. The regulations also provide for the imposition of penalties for contravention.

Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief: time is limited, and an important debate follows.
The Opposition welcome the new regulations, and the fact that they are to be applied retrospectively. None the less, they may well not apply to ships until 14, or even 17, years after their introduction. That is particularly important in the context of ferry safety. Let me ask the Minister a question: as Minister for shipping, does he intend to require ferry operators to state which ferries will operate on which crossings, so that people can choose whether to travel on ships that meet the safety standards? We feel that that choice is important, and that travellers have a right to know and to make a considered decision.

Mr. Barry Field: I am sorry to take issue with my hon. Friend the Minister, but he confirmed an anxiety that I expressed when I met his officials some time ago. I told them then that they were trying to impose higher standards on British ships and the routes to and from our shores than were acceptable to the IMO.
As far as we can see from the map of the area covered by the regulations, the line is drawn off Ushant, which means that ferries sailing from the United Kingdom to the bay of Biscay might not be covered at the bay of Biscay end; moreover, if we look at the top right-hand corner of the map, we see that Norway is practically excepted.
We all recall the tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and I know that a price can never be placed on safety. I fear, however—especially as one who represents the Isle of Wight—that we are straining to approve regulations that may go a little too far. The compliance cost assessment submitted by the Department of Transport along with the regulations estimates the running costs for ships on domestic routes at some £2 million per annum. Paragraph 4, which deals with typical costs, actually mentions the Isle of Wight; it estimates that the capital cost of modification of existing ships will be between £10,000 and £2 million, with additional running costs of approximately £100,000 a year. Those costs are not analysed in the context of routes, however, and the comparison made is with the Isle of Wight and/or Scottish islands.
As far as I am aware, Wightlink, with its Portsmouth-Fishbourne ferries, already complies with the regulations. The Southampton-Cowes route, operated by Red Funnel, has a brand new ferry, the Red Falcon: I assume that it also complies, given that it was launched only recently. The second ship to replace existing vessels on the route has now been launched, and will come into service in October; we hope that it, too, will comply. That leaves the ships that serve the Lymington-Yarmouth route, which—once the new ship is introduced on the Southampton-Cowes route—will be the oldest ferries serving the Isle of Wight.
When people hear the term "roll on, roll off vessel"—or, as we used to say in the Transport Regiment, "roll on, roll off and roll about"—they have a vision of a ship rather like the Herald of Free Enterprise. The Isle of Wight vessels, however, are really just platforms quite close to sea level, not enclosed, with a small amount of passenger accommodation over the vehicle deck. Compartmentalisation is quite alien to ferries serving the


Isle of Wight—although that does not apply to ferries serving the Scottish islands, which have enclosed ro-ro vessels in the conventional sense.
Will my hon. Friend give me a breakdown of the compliance cost assessment relating to the Isle of Wight, as his officials see it? If he cannot do that now, will he undertake to write to me? My constituents will be concerned to learn that the cost may add to that of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight, and we do not wish to impose an undue burden on our economy.
Anyone listening to the debate, however, should be reassured: it is our proud boast that, throughout the long history of ferry services to and from the Isle of Wight, there has never been a major accident causing considerable loss of life at sea. I am sure that that will continue, but my constituents would want me to cast an eagle eye on any proposal that would add to the expense of travel to and from the Isle of Wight. I must look to my hon. Friend for reassurance.

Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend the Minister would not expect a Southampton Member to miss a debate about cross-channel ferries. It does not matter whether I have just walked in or just rowed in; that does not affect my enthusiasm for the regulations.
The cross-channel ferries are ahead of the game. In Southampton, we have had several new ferries, which are doing excellent trade. They are also going through the bay of Biscay: no one can hazard a guess at the difficulties that they encounter there, but the fact remains that they are coming through some of the worst storms.
There is a tendency to over-correct in terms of safety. We all remember the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. That happened because the crew were asleep—it had nothing to do with the quality of the ship or of its management. The problem has been straightened out, and nowadays there is a great deal of internal discipline. I have crossed the channel many times since and have observed that the crews are assiduous about safety—they all seem to be on the car decks, which is where the dangers can arise.
We need not take a large sledgehammer to this problem; there is a great deal of good will in the ferry companies. I do not think that they would resist any measure that the Government might want to introduce, and I hope that the Minister will consult them extensively so that there is no unnecessary expenditure on safety which, in turn, could mean a loss of profit, and redundancy for some of the ships and their crews.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has summed it up: there is a price to be paid for safety; it is important that it should be reasonable and that we should set the risks in perspective.
Of course I understand that no one wants to impose additional costs on the Isle of Wight to the detriment of those who live there and who generally transport goods there by sea. Still, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) himself referred to the Herald disaster, and we are bound to seek the right trade-off between increasing the safety of vessels and reasonable expenditure on them. I think it unlikely that the conversion costs for Isle of Wight vessels will be at the top end of the scale.
As for the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), we have to some extent traded the time scale for a standard that was higher than the IMO was prepared to accept, and have sought a regional agreement. I agree that it is regrettable that the time scale is so long, but it is still a reasonable one. All we are doing is declaring that the standards that we set for ferries as from 1990 shall be applicable to older vessels, too. Recently built vessels serving the Isle of Wight post-1990 will already be of safety-of-life-at-sea—SOLAS—1990 standards and will not require any upgrading; they are already safe enough.
I will ensure that my officials discuss any difficulties to do with costs that may be faced by operators to the island, to see whether it is possible to mitigate them. I stress, however, that the regulations will have statutory force. There is no great opposition to them in the industry.
I have no great difficulty with the right to know. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North believes in the need to support British industry and enterprise, and in particular the British shipping industry. I am sure that she, like me, wants to ensure that information of this sort is obtainable from all vessels that ply to and from the United Kingdom, including those carrying the 50 per cent. of passengers not carried by British vessels. If we can arrange for this information to be available throughout Europe and from all the nation states whose vessels are likely to serve these islands, I will have no great difficulty urging the British shipping community to comply.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Immigration

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move,
That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
The purpose of this Order in Council is to incorporate into United Kingdom immigration law the provisions of all the various European Community directives dealing with freedom of movement and rights of residence for European Economic Area nationals.
The earliest of these directives, relating to the free movement of EC workers, were already in force when the United Kingdom joined the Community. These and later directives have been implemented since by way of the immigration rules, but, as a consolidating measure, they are now to be covered by the order, to provide a separate legislative instrument dealing with the rights of residence of European Economic Area nationals.
In spite of that legal change, the order will make little practical difference to the treatment of EEA nationals in the United Kingdom, because those directives not already covered by the immigration rules are being implemented administratively. The order is thus largely a technical measure.
The three most recent directives relating to students, retired people and others—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Wardle: I will give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I want to get through my speech so that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and his hon. Friends will have a chance to speak.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that, but, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I should like to ask the Minister to explain the fact that it is rather unusual of the Government to press ahead with an order when there is a clear suggestion that there might be problems with its vires. Would it not have been better to take the instrument away and bring it back when it is right?

Mr. Wardle: It is the Government's clear view that it does not need amending. I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I was saying, the three most recent directives relating to students, retired people and others who are financially self-sufficient have been implemented administratively since they came into force in June 1992—and the latest students directive, in December 1993. Likewise, the extension from 1 January 1994 of all the rights of residence directives to the European Economic Area—that is, to Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in addition to the 12 EC states—has been implemented administratively.
The order will discharge our commitment to implement formally the latest rights-of-residence directives. At the same time, it provides a distinct legal framework for EEA nationals who come to the United Kingdom, by covering also the six earlier directives which date back to the 1960s and 1970s and have already been implemented through the immigration rules.
By consolidating these directives, which have already been long in force, together with the latest three directives,

which have been implemented administratively, the order is a necessary technical measure and it will not introduce any significant change in the entitlement of EEA nationals to reside here with their families. These, of course, are the same rights of residence which enable British citizens to work and reside anywhere within the European Economic Area.
The concept of free movement within the European Community is long standing. When the United Kingdom joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1972, we acceded to the provisions that were already in place allowing the free movement of EC workers.
Further measures were introduced subsequently allowing the free movement and residence of self-employed people and of providers and recipients of services. Three more directives came into force in 1992 and 1993 concerning the rights of residence of retired people, students and of any EC nationals not already covered by existing EC measures.
The main condition for anyone benefiting from the three latest directives is that he must be financially self-supporting. The cumulative effect is to provide all EC nationals with a right to reside in any member state, regardless of whether they are economically active, provided that they are working or can otherwise support themselves.
The European Economic Area Act 1993 enabled the United Kingdom to ratify the European Economic Area agreement which came into force on 1 January 1994. The agreement extends most of the provisions of the single market to five of the member states of the European Free Trade Association—to Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. That is why, although we are speaking about Community entitlements arising from directives made under the treaty of Rome, the order refers to nationals of states that are parties to the European Economic Area agreement. The order is being made under the powers conferred by the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the European Economic Area Act 1993.
The immigration rules already contain a general statement to the effect that they apply only to EC nationals—now extended to EEA nationals—and their families to the extent permitted by Community law, and that such persons are entitled to exercise their rights of residence as provided in Community law.
The order carries no implications for the maintenance of immigration controls at our frontiers with other member states, on which the Government's position is well known. However, on 1 January, to coincide with the entry into force of the European Economic Area agreement, the separate immigration channels for EC passengers arriving at our major ports and airports were extended to all EEA nationals. Arriving EEA nationals are thus treated in a similar way to British and other EC citizens and no longer require any "leave to enter" stamped in their passports.
The reality is that EEA nationals, including British citizens, are now free to work or reside anywhere within the European Economic Area. Showing a passport or identity card at the frontier as evidence of nationality cannot be said to interfere with the fundamental rights of free movement and residence.
The wording of the order is in part complex as it follows closely the wording of nine separate directives. It sets out the rights of residence of EEA nationals who fall into the following categories: workers; self-employed people,


including those who have ceased economic activity in the United Kingdom; providers and recipients of services; retired persons; self-sufficient people; and students.
The order confirms that any EEA national may enter the United Kingdom on production of a valid passport or identity card. I should add that this wording comes from the EC directives that link the right of entry to the production of an EEA passport or identity card.
As long as they continue to qualify under the order in one of these categories, EEA nationals are free to remain in the United Kingdom without any further formality. I should make it clear that in some other member states, where there is a compulsory system of registration, residence permits are obligatory, but in this country there is no obligation to apply for a residence permit. If an EEA national does so, of course, subject to proof of their entitlement, a residence permit confirming this status will be issued. The residence permit is a card with the holder's photograph available to EEA nationals residing here. It is issued free of charge and, with certain exceptions, is normally valid for five years,
For example, workers who are to be employed in the United Kingdom for more than three months, but less than 12 months, are issued with a residence permit valid for the period of employment. Students' residence permits are valid for the duration of the course of study or, where the course lasts for more than one year, the validity of the permit may be limited to one year.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister will know that the primary concern of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments involved students. Will he give information on the procedures and the evidence that the UK authorities will require, first, to assure themselves that a student has the resources to support himself or herself and, secondly, to satisfy the validity of a spouse and family?

Mr. Wardle: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I shall come to that point, as is my wont, at a fair gallop to allow as much debate as we can reasonably have.
The order also confirms the right of appeal to the independent immigration appellate authorities for any EEA national or family member who is refused a residence permit or residence document or has one withdrawn.
Those rights of residence are qualified by the important power to refuse admission to, or to remove from, the United Kingdom any EEA national whose exclusion or deportation could be justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
The order provides that EEA family members of EEA nationals benefit from the same rights of residence as the EEA principal. They are not required to apply for a residence permit, but may do so if they wish and, so long as they remain members of the family of an EEA national who is exercising residence rights in the United Kingdom, they benefit from the same entitlements.
Any family member who is not an EEA national and who is coming to the United Kingdom to install himself with an EEA national exercising rights of residence will need to be in possession of an EEA family permit. That family permit is an entry clearance issued by British diplomatic posts overseas to those who can demonstrate

that they are family members of an EEA national who is resident, or is about to become resident, in the United Kingdom.
No charge will be made for the issue of such a family permit. We have chosen the name "EEA family permit" to distinguish it from a visa issued under the immigration rules. The power to demand such an entry clearance is contained in article 3(2) of directive 68/360/EEC.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister clarify the status of a non-EEA national who does not have such a document? Will it be regarded as one of the documents that are necessary under section 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993? If so, that will have an impact on the rights of that person to have an appeal.

Mr. Wardle: I shall seek to clarify the hon. Gentleman's point in a few moments.
Non-EEA family members of EEA nationals who are coming to the United Kingdom for other reasons—for example, a short visit—will not be required to hold an EEA family permit, but family members who are visa nationals will need to obtain a visa or an EEA family permit, depending on the purpose of their stay, before travelling here. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
The definition of "family members" in the order covers all those family members of EEA nationals with an entitlement to reside here with the EEA national in accordance with the various directives—the spouse, dependent children, parents or grandparents. I should add that any children under 21 years of age are regarded in EC law as being entitled to accompany their parents; that provision dates back to 1968.
In addition, we allow for the admission of other dependent relatives of EEA nationals as provided for in EC regulation 1612/68. That provision, however, is not contained in the order, first, because it is not an absolute entitlement to entry and, secondly, because EC regulations have direct effect in United Kingdom law and, therefore, do not require separate transposition.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the order contains a provision in article 2(2) that precludes non-EEA nationals from any entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by contracting a marriage of convenience to an EEA national. We recognise that EC law does not enable us to apply all the provisions of the immigration rules, such as the primary purpose test, in EEA marriage cases, but we do not accept that a party to a marriage of convenience has any right to benefit from EC law relating to the admission and residence of family members. We intend to maintain a strong line against bogus marriages and we will ensure that non-EEA nationals are not able to use marriages of convenience as a way of obtaining residence in the United Kingdom.
I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has expressed its doubts about the vires of the reference in the order at article 6(2)(h)(ii) to the adequacy of the financial resources available to an EEA student. We take a different view from the Joint Committee over the drafting of this article, the wording of which comes directly from the students directive. The article states, among other things, that a student for purposes of the order means a person who
has sufficient resources to avoid him becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom.
The term social assistance, rather than social security, is


used here simply because that term is used in the directive. Although not defined in EC law, it is regarded as covering income-related benefits such as income support.
The order does not specify by what means a student may demonstrate that he has adequate resources. We do not consider that it is necessary to set out that evidence of means may be provided by way of a declaration, or such alternative means as are at least equivalent, or that the absence of any such detailed procedural reference creates any doubt about the transposition of the students directives by the order.
When an EEA student applies for a residence permit, we only ask for only reasonable evidence of funds, and a declaration including letters indicating financial support from parents or other sponsors would be regarded as sufficient.
In parallel with the order, we shall bring into force section 7(1) of the Immigration Act 1988, which removes the requirement on EEA nationals to obtain leave to enter the United Kingdom.
I should mention an administrative change relating to the non-EEA dependants of Irish nationals, which is linked to the order. Until now, given our close links with Ireland, it has been our practice to regard the non-EEA spouse and dependants of an Irish national as settled as soon as they arrive in the United Kingdom. This practice is different from the treatment of non-EEA spouses of other EEA nationals, who would normally be issued with a five-year residence permit. There is some evidence, moreover, of non-EEA nationals contracting marriages of convenience with Irish nationals.
We have decided, therefore, that, following the entry into force of the order, the non-EEA dependants of an Irish national who apply under EC law will be treated under the order in the same way as the non-EEA dependants of all other EEA nationals. Irish nationals, in such circumstances, will be issued with a residence permit, normally valid for five years, and their non-EEA spouse or other dependants will be issued with a residence document of the same limited validity. Irish nationals with a non-EEA spouse will not, however, be obliged to apply for residence permits and the non-EEA spouse may choose to apply under the immigration rules in the same way as a non-EEA national who marries a British citizen. Furthermore, the change will affect only Irish nationals with non-EEA dependants. Accordingly, it will not cause any inconvenience for the great majority of Irish nationals living here.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister assure the House that additional resources will be made available to the immigration service to enable it to deal speedily with these changes?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as soon as the changes come into force, that will be attended to. It has been taken into account under the normal procedure in our negotiations with the Treasury.
In the context of EEA nationals more generally, the order will not result in any fundamental change of treatment. It will enable us to discharge our commitment to implement formally the latest directives in United Kingdom law and will thus enable us to maintain one of the best records within the European Union for transposing EC law into domestic legislation. The United Kingdom is second only to Denmark in its rate of transposition of single market measures.
I hope that the order will go some way towards clarifying the effects of EC law on rights of residents by consolidating in this one document the key provisions of the nine separate EC directives on which it is based. Time is short because of the earlier debates, but, if I have the opportunity, I will seek to answer some of the points that I suspect the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and other hon. Members will raise. If I do not get the opportunity to do that before 7 o'clock. I assure the House that I will write to hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: Out of courtesy to hon. Members and those outside, I hope that in the not-too-distant future the House will timetable its business so that our debates on immigration and other matters can be heard by those who regard such issues as significant. We often get, at best, one and a half hours quite late, and on this occasion we have only 30 or 40 minutes to debate the matter at the end of other business.
It is sad to see a great Department of State in trouble and out of political control, but that is what has happened over the past few months in the Home Office, especially on immigration and nationality matters. Immigration policy was never much more than an add-on to Conservative thought, a way to supplement playing the race card at general elections, and it was never taken seriously as a significant policy matter.
In the past few months, there have been a number of banana skins and some deliberate miscalculations. It started at Christmas with the fiasco over Jamaicans coming to our country. About 160 people were detained for no good reason and not one person was charged as a result. We still do not know whether the Minister had agreed to that or whether it was a freelance operation at Gatwick airport by immigration officers who were perhaps not under proper political control.
There was the fiasco of the Campsfield detainees. At one point, about 150 political asylum seekers were on hunger strike. Was that fiasco a weapon deliberately designed to put off people seeking asylum in our country or did it have its own momentum and get out of hand because of lack of control from the top? Hon. Members could pepper the Government's record with examples from their casework relating to immigration and asylum matters in which discretion has not been used in the way that it should. That applies especially in the context of the abolition of the right of appeal for student or other visitors. Thousands of people are denied the right of appeal that was used successfully until last year.
We could add to the catalogue. There was the tragedy of Joy Gardner, the present banana skin of identity cards or border checks and the "when the music stops" nonsense that is being played with the European Commission. We are right up to date with the pantomime surrounding the order. The Government have had six years to prepare the instrument, but it is unclear and deeply confusing and confused. I challenge hon. Members to read it if they have the time. It may not even conform to EC directives.
Just over a week ago, the order was debated in the other place and so many discrepancies were found by my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and by Lord Bonham-Carter that the Minister responsible for the order,


Lord Annaly, felt unable to put it to a vote. It is amazing that the order has not been withdrawn or rewritten in a form that would be acceptable to both Houses.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am used to the hon. Gentleman's normal delivery, but he has raised a couple of issues to which he and the House would expect me to reply. The Joint Committee made one point in its report that we saw no reason to change.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the order being withdrawn in the other place, but that did not happen. The debate was adjourned and my noble Friend undertook to look into a number of points raised in the debate and follow them up by writing to the noble Lords. He gave no undertaking that the order would be amended before being reintroduced and we have no intention of so doing.

Mr. Allen: The debate was adjourned in the other place, and it is unusual for a debate on such an affirmative order to be adjourned there or in this House. If it is a familiar process, I should be happy for this debate to be adjourned so that hon. Members could have more than 15 minutes during which they can seek to intervene on my speech. It is an unusual procedure, but I should be happy to see it repeated in the House if the Minister thinks that it is appropriate.
It is evident from the recent record of the Home Office, from Joy Gardner to the Jamaican incident and to the order placed before the two Houses, that the Department is a complete shambles. Someone inside or outside the Home Office needs to get a grip on the Department and restore its political primacy so that, instead of blaming officers at Gatwick or Heathrow, we can call Ministers to account at the Dispatch box.
The Home Secretary has attempted to steer clear of immigration matters and keep to law and order, which has given great pleasure to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We all know from recent opinion polls the outcome of that battle.
The order puts into UK law parts of nine different EC directives which, as the Minister said, will give the rights conferred on nationals of European Union member states to nationals of the European Free Trade Association. The measure was enthusiastically backed by Conservatives during proceedings on the European Economic Area legislation, but a few weeks ago those same people, bereft of any sense of purpose in Europe, sought to appease their Europhobes with puerile antics in the Council of Ministers on the issue of enlargement. That put at risk the chance for colleagues in Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland to become members of the European Union.
That shows how lacking in importance are European and immigration matters to the Government and the Home Office. Having deliberately created that difficulty over enlargement, Conservatives had to back down in humiliation. I do not mind the Conservative party ritualistically inflicting humiliation on itself over Europe, but I do object when my country has its good public image and good European image dragged down into the mire alongside the internal battles of the Conservative party.
Despite our broad and necessary support for the measure, I wish to raise a number of general points, some of which the Minister touched on and others that he sidestepped. In view of the time constraints, it may assist

the House if I put those points as a series of questions. Colleagues who wish to intervene may take the opportunity to do so.
Is the Minister aware that the rules for EEA nationals throw into sharp relief the lack of corresponding rights for resident third country nationals in the United Kingdom—notably, settled Commonwealth country citizens? Although the order did not need to include them, as it is designed to implement a European agreement only, will the Government resolve the anomaly whereby an Austrian citizen, for example, will now have more rights in the European Union than an Indian citizen who has lived here for 30 years? The European Commission recently proposed improving the rights of resident third country nationals throughout the union. Will the Government support its proposals?
Will the Minister further define the reference to "a marriage of convenience" in paragraph 2(2)? Who is to decide what is a marriage of convenience? Couples have been questioned by Home Office officials in a way that suggests that it is treating applications as though people must meet the requirements of British immigration law on marriage. European law gives automatic rights to the spouses of people who have moved for a treaty purpose. British immigration rules could mean no right of appeal against refusal and deportation.
If a person has been in the UK less than seven years, he or she has no full right of appeal against such a decision. European Union nationals and their family members have extra safeguards against deportation under EU law. The Minister must be aware of fears that the measure is an attempt to export Britain's primary purpose rule to all other EEA member states. Is that his intention? Does he realise that there are no domestic powers to overrule rights defined under European law? The Minister is creating a lawyers' bean feast, with the possibility of judicial review and cases being taken to the European Court.
Will the Government delete the rider to the definition of spouse in paragraph 2(2), so that it has its customary and normal meaning? If the Home Office believes that the marriage is one of convenience and therefore that it is not conducive to the public good that the person be given a residency permit, it has the power to refuse a permit or to deport on that ground—as provided in sections 17 and 18 of the 1972 Act—and justify its allegation before the immigration appellate authorities. That is the course that the Home Office should take.
Does the Minister acknowledge concerns about paragraph 3(1) and (2) which require proof of family membership? How is that proof to be provided? Who will make the decision, and what means of redress will be available to those whose claims are refused? In that context, what is meant in paragraph 3(3) by a "family permit"? That conflicts with paragraph 5(2), which in turn conflicts with paragraph 19. Those differences are hard to understand and virtually impossible to reconcile. They are yet another example of drafting that almost defies comprehension.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord McIntosh raised a number of other issues that require further explanation, which one hopes will be forthcoming when debate is resumed there. Contradictory definitions of "family member" and of the immigration status of a family member who reaches the age of 21 are to be found in paragraph 2.

Mr. Gerrard: Paragraph 4(2) deals with a person who ceases to be a family member of a qualified person. Does my hon. Friend agree that under existing immigration rules, a person who is a foreign national and the spouse or family member of a UK national, would normally acquire residence rights after one year's probationary period. It is far from clear whether that would be the case under the order.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall be glad to give way to the Minister if he wishes to put his comments on record. Otherwise, I hope that that aspect will be put right in the other place because it is a source of great confusion. What will happen to such individuals? There seems to have been little preparation, even though the Government had six years to pull the order together. I hope that they will re-examine that issue and will put on the record in the other place what will happen in such circumstances.
Their Lordships also queried the definition in paragraph 6(2)(h) of a student as a person on a vocational course. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments commented that the matter was ultra vires, and even wrote to the Home Office to point out that provision was so contradictory and conflicting that the Committee felt that it might prevent the order progressing in its present form. Although only a passing reference to that was made in another place, the Minister should give clearer assurances.
Does the order's definition of a student mean all students, or are the Government sticking to the words of the European Union, to mean only students who are on a vocational course? If so, that would be highly restrictive.
We seek further clarification of the difference between social security and "social assistance", in paragraph 6(1)(f). The provisions covering involuntary unemployment seem designed to exclude as many people as possible and also demand further clarification.
Further assurances are sought in respect of paragraph 12, dealing with residence permits. Is it the Government's intention to get rid of or to limit the concept of settlement and permanent stay, and to replace them with time-limited residence permits that are subject to periodic review? The order goes only as far as absolutely necessary.
My hon. Friends who have dealt with the Home Office in seeking written answers will know of the mentality that produces a lack of openness and generosity in its definitions. Nowhere is that more evident than in the order's failure to tackle third country nationals. The appalling treatment of domestic servants wholly dependent on employers has been passed by—another opportunity missed. Equally, there is nothing in the order to help unify split families of third country nationals.
The order is a dog's breakfast and will produce a rich seam of cases for judicial review and the attention of the

European Court. Unless it is withdrawn or substantially amended, it will pass tonight without the support of the Opposition.
As an aside, it is nonsense that under the affirmative procedure, even when it is obvious that an amendment is necessary, it is not procedurally possible to amend an order in this House or the other place. Either the order must be withdrawn and resubmitted or the House must pass a resolution stating that it acknowledges that the order is faulty.
I hope that the Minister will refer to our detailed criticisms of the order and those of my noble Friend Lord McIntosh and the Lord Bonham-Carter, as well as to the views of knowledgeable pressure groups. It is evident from the order that a more mature and professional approach needs to be taken to Europe than the Conservatives—riven by internal differences—are capable of providing. The order is the product of a tired, directionless Government who do not know what they want from Europe. I hope that the electorate will put the Government out of their misery, at least in respect of the European issue, on 9 June.

Mr. Charles Wardle: With the permission of the House, I will reply. The preamble of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was entirely predictable. It was a chorus that we have heard again and again. The only thing is that it sounded more tired on this occasion. He raised a number of points. I said earlier—like him, I regret the shortness of the debate—that I would provide answers in writing, which I will make available to hon. Members.
The first point that I will address is about a marriage of convenience: a marriage entered into solely for immigration purposes, with neither partner having the intention of living permanently with the other as man and wife in a settled and genuine relationship. The hon. Gentleman referred to the primary purpose test. That test is contained in UK immigration rules, but not in EC law on free movement, which simply refers to a "spouse"—who may or may not be a EEA national—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to order [29 April].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the time available for the debate has been wholly inadequate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to participate. May I move, therefore, That the Question be not put, to enable debate to take place on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): No. I comply with the order of the House.

Orders of the Day — Italian Steel Industry

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6472/93, relating to the privatisation of the German steel company Sachsische Edelstahlwerke GmbH, Freital/Saxony, 9098/93, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish integrated steel company Corporacion de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI), 10074/93, relating to the future of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, 10167/93, relating to the restructuring of the Portuguese steel company Siderurgia Nacional (SN), 10276/93 and 10359/93, relating to the restructuring of the German steel company EKO Stahl AG Eisenhuttenstadt, SEC(93) 1434, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish steel company SIDENOR, and 5473/94, a Commission Report on state aid to the steel industry.]

7 pm

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93, relating to the Italian state iron and steel industry; endorses the Government's decision to support the agreement reached on the package of state aid cases discussed at the Industry Council on 17th December 1993; notes with approval the undertakings secured at the Council regarding the stringent monitoring of approved aids, which will help to ensure that they are not used to disadvantage unaided competitors, the commitment to the strict application of ECSC state aid rules to end subsidisation, the recognition that there will be no further aid to these companies if viability is not achieved, and the early privatisation of most of the companies involved; and endorses this agreement as a useful step towards ending the distortion of state subsidies in the steel industry.
The debate is a welcome opportunity to comment on recent developments in the European steel industry and in particular on the package of proposals for state aid to restructure six steel companies, including the Italian company Ilva, agreed at the 17 December Industry Council. The other companies concerned are EKO Stahl and Freital in Germany, CSI and SIDENOR in Spain and Siderurgia Nacional in Portugal.
The House will be aware that the proposals were made under article 95 of the treaty of Paris, which requires the unanimous assent of the Council. Several of the proposals have been under discussion for more than a year, during which time some of the companies had continued to receive state support. The continued operation in the Community of inefficient companies propped up by massive illegal state aid has been directly responsible for preserving over-capacity and allowing uneconomic pricing, both of which have put great pressure on our own unsubsidised and highly efficient steel industry.
I should like to emphasise straight away that, throughout the lengthy and complex negotiations on the proposals from the Commission, I, and my officials, kept in close touch with the British Iron and Steel Producers Association and our leading steel producer, British Steel. I can assure the House that we shall continue to consult them, particularly on any reports or proposals that come from the Commission. The Government and the industry have a shared aim: a level playing field with fair trading in steel in the Community. It is, however, much easier to identify and agree on that aim than it is to achieve it.
For the Council on 17 December, the industry and I had four main objectives. First, we wanted an agreement that there should be an immediate end to running cost subsidies. The industry was prepared to draw a line under past unauthorised subsidies, if that was the price of agreement to strict observance of state aid rules in the future. Secondly, we wanted to see adequate capacity reductions at the companies concerned. Thirdly, we looked for explicit acceptance that there would be no "second

helpings" for those companies, so that if the planned restructuring failed to restore them to viability, no further aid would be allowed, and further capacity cuts—or, indeed, total closure—would follow. Finally, we were determined to get far more rigorous arrangements for monitoring how the approved aid is spent. We wanted, for the first time, a role for the Council, rather than, as in the past, supervision of the aid being given left entirely to the Commission.
As I have already said, throughout the negotiating process we maintained close contact with the industry. Because the proposals had been brought under article 95, which requires the unanimous assent of the Council, I was able to take a firm line on the conditions that Britain would attach to any agreement. During the negotiations, I had to take account of the support for our proposals from fellow member states and the extent to which we could achieve each of our objectives. I had constantly in mind the consequences for our industry of failure to obtain agreement in the Council of Ministers. It was, I regret, clear that, if there were no agreement, illegal subsidies would continue, probably for at least another year, and we would have made little or no progress on essential capacity reductions.
As a result of our tough stance, our four objectives were substantially agreed. Working with industry advice, we were also able to negotiate the tightening up of aspects of a number of the specific cases, notably EKO Stahl, CSI and SIDENOR. However, I will not pretend to the House that the agreement reached on 17 December was ideal—far from it. I have to say that, during the final stages of the negotiations, we had much less support from our partners in the Community for a better deal than I would have hoped.
The terms finally agreed for Ilva, the Italian company, were not as good as we would have liked, especially on capacity reduction, but they do commit the Italian Government to total privatisation of the company at an early date. Privatisation should help to ensure that its future operations are carried out on a proper commercial basis. The Council did accept other points for which we had pressed—an agreement to end subsidies, no "second helpings" of aid, and stringent monitoring of authorised aid. So we achieved three of our four objectives. As to the industry response to the decision, I can do no better than quote Brian Moffat, chairman of British Steel, who said that the agreement reached in December was
the best in the circumstances.
I attach particular importance to the agreement that we reached on stringent and effective monitoring—the text owes a lot to our proposals and is an important step forward. It is much stronger than those in previous restructurings. That monitoring will include visits to the plants to see what is really happening. With the involvement of the Council of Ministers, we can ensure that the views of our industry are taken into account.
The conclusions of the 17 December Council set out in some detail the rigorous monitoring procedures. For the first time, as I have said, the Council of Ministers has a role in the monitoring process. The Commission is required to report on its findings to the Council at regular intervals. Indeed, at the industry council on 22 April, the Commission gave an oral report on the first monitoring period—up to 15 March. The first formal written monitoring report was presented on schedule and discussed at an ECSC working group meeting on 3 May. It was


prepared by a small team—established within the Commission—that has the assistance of specialist consultants as necessary.
The Commission describes the first report as providing, in effect, the base line against which future developments can be measured, as well as covering some developments since December. Our initial analysis is that, while it represents a useful starting point for future work, it is clear that much more needs to be done. It is evident from the report that, by late April, the Commission had still not received all the information requested from the six companies. There is a particular lack of information from Ilva.
Of at least equal concern, the report also shows that what information has been provided demonstrates that the financial position of some of the companies, notably CSI, SIDENOR and Siderurgia Nacional, has deteriorated further since their restructuring plans were drawn up. It is, however, encouraging to report that, at the ECSC working group meeting last week, Commission officials undertook to take infraction action against countries and companies that transgress the terms agreed.
The Commission has also confirmed that its monitoring team will do more than just examine its member states' regular returns on progress and report them to the Council—the Council previously did not have the benefit of such reports. The team will take, according to the Commission, a proactive role by seeking additional information that is relevant, inspecting plants and verifying—this is particularly important—the information provided and the financial performance of the companies.
At the working group meeting, my officials took a firm line on the need for full information and insisted that failure to meet agreed conditions should be punished. They also insisted that, in accordance with the agreement reached in December, there must be no attempt to provide additional aid to companies with worse-than-forecast results, even if that means further capacity cuts or, as I said earlier, even the total closure of a company.
My Department will also carry out some independent monitoring through our industry contacts and our embassies in the relevant countries. We shall watch carefully to ensure that the Commission team examines all the information that it receives with a critical eye and that any necessary action is taken to ensure that the terms of the article 95 decisions are observed in full.
The December agreement is not the only state aids issue occupying the British steel industry at present, and I took the opportunity of the Council on 22 April to raise two other cases, Klöckner and Saarstahl, which are causing grave concern and which I had already taken up personally with Commissioner Van Miert. The Government regard those cases as important tests of the commitment of the Commission and the Council to apply the rules of the treaty and the steel aids code against state aids to steel producers. I am pleased to report that I had strong support for our views on those cases from a number of colleagues in the Council chamber in April.
The 22 April Council also received an interim report on the progress of voluntary restructuring of the steel industry, as envisaged in the Braun plan. I expressed my disappointment at the slow progress of that exercise, but said that I understood the reluctance of the private sector, unsubsidised industry to commit itself to closures until it is certain that member states and the Commission have

shown the political will to enforce the treaty and steel aids code and until it is clear that the conditions attached to the 17 December agreement are being observed.
The Council agreed to an extension of the supporting measures first agreed in February 1993 to facilitate voluntary restructuring until September of this year, but I made it clear that we would want to see firm evidence of restructuring by that time. Any decision to participate in the voluntary restructuring process, either by offering capacity cuts or by helping to finance closures elsewhere in the Community, is entirely a matter for the company concerned.
The United Kingdom steel industry is now universally recognised to be highly efficient and capable of competing successfully anywhere in the world. It is the envy of many other countries. That is an achievement of which the industry can be justifiably proud, although it has sadly meant closures and job losses. It is now the turn of other countries and companies to take their share of the pain.
To conclude, I can assure the House that the Council and the Commission are in no doubt about the importance that the British Government attach to rigorous implementation of the enhanced monitoring procedures agreed in December. I am not assuming that the battle has been won, but I see evidence of progress towards the creation of a fairer single market in steel, a market in which our highly efficient industry will be able to compete effectively and fairly. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I fear that the Minister's speech could have been made on several occasions over recent years. I suspect that if we were to go back and examine copies of Ministers' speeches and ministerial press releases, we would find the same words and sentiments.
There is agreement about two points. First, it is abundantly clear that there is over-capacity in the European steel industry. Secondly, it is plain that the British steel industry is now Europe's most efficient steel industry. It is clear from the figures that our efficiency compares well with that of the steel industries of other countries.
According to figures published in "World Steel Dynamics" in February, Britain has a competitive advantage over the Japanese of nearly 42 per cent., over the Germans of 30 per cent., over the French of 17 per cent., over the Koreans of 17 per cent. and over Taiwan of 23 per cent. It may be relevant to the debate to note that "World Steel Dynamics" could not produce figures for the Italian steel industry. While the Minister may find that amusing, it is the heart of the problem because those figures are simply not available.
The British steel industry is efficient, but it has not enjoyed the support of its Government in recent years. It is clear from the figures that the British steel industry has borne the lion's share of capacity and employment cuts over the past decade.
It is odd for a Minister of a Government who believe in free markets and competition to come to the House on behalf of the British steel industry to argue that the most efficient industry in Europe should be the industry that, in recent years, has been forced to lose jobs and capacity. That has occurred not because of the failure of the management or the work force of the British steel industry. According to all criteria, efficiency and productivity in the


industry have increased. The deep problem facing the British steel industry is that the Government have not offered their support for the industry in the way in which other Governments have offered support to their steel industries.
If something is going to happen in the way that the Minister described it, and if real action is to be taken to deal with the subsidy problem, the British steel industry should not lose jobs or capacity. However, what does the Minister say? He says that on 17 December he and the Council of Ministers set themselves four objectives, but those objectives are simply not being met.
As I said earlier, the Minister's comments today could have been made at any time over the past few years. They clearly show the extent to which the Government have failed to deliver to the British steel industry. Let us consider those four objectives—the end of running-cost subsidies, capacity reductions in other countries' steel industries, no "second helpings" and no further aid, and rigorous arrangements for monitoring. The simple fact is that the Minister's speech shows that not one of those objectives has yet been achieved.
Brian Moffat said that the Minister achieved the best deal "in the circumstances" when he went to negotiate on behalf of the British steel industry last December. However, I wonder what that really means. I suspect that it means that the Minister came back with exactly the same set of promises that he has returned with on every other occasion.
Does not the responsibility for the dilemma now facing the British steel industry rest wholly at the Government's door? How can steel managers and steel employees be expected to improve their productivity and efficiency when they know that if they become more competitive in the marketplace, they will be undercut by companies and industries that are operating on a subsidised basis? At the same time, they know that the British Government are so weak and so incapable that they are not delivering on promises to cut subsidies in other countries.
The Government are in a dilemma. We have a strong steel industry, but we have a weak Government. Our real problem is the weakness of our Government. The Government spend their time fighting and arguing among themselves instead of fighting and arguing in Europe for Britain's interests. If more energy, effort and commitment were devoted to fighting for the British steel industry instead of fighting for position within the Conservative party, those working in the British steel industry might have a better deal.
When the Minister goes to the Council of Ministers, he finds himself on this issue—as I suspect on many others—alone and without allies. Is that not surprising given that this Government, under this Prime Minister, claimed that they were going to be at the heart of Europe? They are marginalised on each and every issue. When the Minister was trying to negotiate a tough new regime to remove subsidies, his Government were alienating every other European Government on the issue of qualified majority voting.

Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I clearly said that it was welcome to hear the strong support that I received from Ministers in the Community at the meeting on 22 April.
One might say that I led the charge on Ilva but I had strong support around the table, which was welcome. That does not seem to reflect what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Fatchett: My fear for the British steel industry is that the Minister, as the general leading the charge, will remind many of the first world war. I fear that it will be yet another general who takes his troops into a loss of jobs and a loss of capacity. The simple fact is that the Minister has made the same promises and commitments for years, and they simply have not been delivered.
Britain's way of playing issues and policies in Europe is to find itself in isolation and without friends. The key point of the Minister's speech—I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate because they have key constituency interests—is that, despite all the words that he used tonight, all the promises and all the suggestions that he has come back with a better deal, there is a simple question that he must answer: how will this be enforced? Despite all those words, there is no evidence of the rigorous monitoring that will lead to enforcement.
I dare say that in 12 months or two years—if the Government and the Minister survive that long, which is highly improbable—the Minister will come back and say yet again that he has an agreement that will lead to cuts in subsidies and cuts in capacity. While that is happening, further British steel industry jobs and capacity will be lost.
It is time that the Government showed some real commitment to our manufacturing base, recognised the importance of our steel industry and did for our steel industry what other Governments are doing for their steel industries—protect jobs, protect capacity and fight in Europe. We are fed up with Ministers coming back with wishy-washy statements. Now is the time for action and now is the time to protect the British steel industry. We shall be voting against the motion tonight because we believe that the Government have had too long and they have simply failed on the issue.

Mr. John Morris: The House is grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to the progress—or lack of progress—in cutting subsidised steel capacity in the EC, particularly in Italy. I endorse some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett); we have been waiting too long for progress.
Nearly 30 years ago, as a young Minister in the Ministry of Power, I visited Italy to look at IRI, the Istituto per la Riconstruzione Industriale—Italy's mechanism to finance industrial development. If I remember correctly, it is one of Italy's inheritances from Mussolini. I visited Taranto, its subsidiary steelworks—today, it is one of our problems. It was an enlightening visit. There was hardly a worker in sight, and it was held up to us as a model.
In the United Kingdom, we have gone through, and paid dearly for, the process of restructuring our steel industry. In my time, I have seen the numbers of workers walking through the gates of the plant at Port Talbot come down from 14,000 to 15,000 a day to fewer than 5,000 now. We have survived.
I should be profoundly dismayed if our highly competitive steel industry, of which we are proud, should, through no fault of its own—it is able to compete with anyone in the world—suffer because of the failure of other parts of Europe to weed out their dead wood and, indeed, to continue to subsidise that dead wood at our expense. I


yield to no one, having lived through an awful period of redundancies, in my concern for redundancies themselves. But the funds are there to be utilised. I was glad to read of a decision at last by the Italian Government to deal with more than 10,000 redundancies reported only a few weeks ago in Ilva.
First, we all recognise that there is a huge problem of over-capacity. According to BSC, that over-capacity is in the order of 30 million tonnes of crude steel or 19 to 25 million tonnes of hot rolled products. The Council has agreed to the Commission's plan to reduce the figure by 19 million tonnes. As Commissioner Bangemann confirmed in his letter to the president of the Council on 14 April:
The Community's steel market has deteriorated seriously since November 1992 …The Commission accepts that capacity reductions already decided upon are insufficient.
That is an indication of my concern and that of my hon. Friend as to the effectiveness of the present arrangement to meet the decision made at the December meeting or in the discussions that continued in April.
The agreement reached in December was extremely disappointing from the viewpoint of non-aided companies such as British Steel. We have all noted the careful words of Mr. Brian Moffat—they were careful because there was nothing else that he, or, indeed, the Minister could accept. The meeting in December was not a success, and the sooner we recognise that the better. The closure timetable will have a negligible effect on supply in 1994 and 1995. The highly subsidised flat product mills of Italy and Spain increased their deliveries to the United Kingdom market in 1993. That is the position.
The balance sheet of proposed closures shows that 2.3 million tonnes are to be closed in the Basque region of Spain. However, the Spanish authorities intend to replace that with a new mill of 1 million tonnes—or possibly two—as soon as possible. That is an intention which the Commission will not resist if at least 51 per cent. of the capital is from private sources. Secondly, there will be a restriction of 1.2 million tonnes at the Taranto strip and plate mills. That will not affect current output.
Thirdly, there will be the demolition or sale of a strip mill at Bagnoli in Italy which has not operated for two years. That accounts for 0.3 million tonnes. The real effect is in fact zero. It is a theoretical capacity reduction in Italy, but it will have no effect on real production potential. To offset that, a new mill will be created with state aid at EKO Stahl in east Germany. It will be limited to 900,000 tonnes per annum—for the moment, I suspect. That is the economics of the madhouse. It is obvious that the great bulk of the desired capacity reduction is to be effected by unaided steel producers.
As for reducing capacity in loss-making, inefficient subsidised companies, the Council meeting on 17 December was not a success. The inevitable result—this is where it affects my constituents—is an effect on the unaided companies which must influence their restructuring and decisions.
There were two good results from the December meeting. I commend the Minister because it was the Government's pressure that brought about the hoped—for improved monitoring system. A great deal is expected from that. I also welcome the fact that the Council resolved that the exceptional measures that had been taken to authorise subsidies would not be repeated in the future—what the Minister described as second helpings.
Two other important matters were not in the discussions in December. I tried to follow what the Minister said—as I understand it, he raised the matters at the April meeting. This is significant. The bankrupt German company, Saarstahl, continues to operate at full capacity under German bankruptcy regulations. It has done so for more than a year and the Commission appears to be powerless. The pricing policy being pursued by the company producing rods and bars is seriously disruptive. The Minister said—I have received reports on this—that complaints were made only at the April meeting. Obviously, no decision was taken, or he would have reported it.
The Commission has approved a sort of act of forgiveness—the Klocknerstahl company of Bremen. Last year, the company persuaded its creditors to cancel 40 per cent. of its debts. I draw the attention of the House to what is happening there. That was conditional upon the company undertaking to close one of its blast furnaces. The Commission recently agreed that the closed furnace should be reactivated, as the remaining furnace had technical problems. I am sure that the Minister knows about this and I am sure that he will want to inquire further about whether the Commission is willing for the Belgian company Sidmar, as a condition of its participation in the equity of the company, to be allowed to maintain both blast furnaces and the full capacity of the hot coil mill if compensating capacity reductions can be found elsewhere in the Sidmar/Arbed group.
That is a sorry tale and it appears that the Commission abandoned its responsibility once it agreed to the reopening of the mill. Therefore, we are deeply concerned about the future.
In closing, I shall deal with what the Minister has emphasised is monitoring. It must be adequate and, whether it is by the committee of the Commission or not, it must be able. I would have preferred independent auditors to be employed to ensure that there were regular reports on the physical and financial restructuring.
I was glad to note in today's Metal Bulletin that the Commission is moving in respect of monitoring Ilva, EKO Stahl and Freital. Italy is believed to have withheld its full 1993 balance sheet for Ilva, and refused at the May meeting of the Commission's committee to provide further details. I am glad that there is movement in that respect.
As Commissioner Van Miert said:
The credibility of the whole plan for restructuring …depends on compliance of conditions laid down and agreed to.
Obviously, there should be no new subsidies and, where there is privatisation, it should be for the full and fair market value. Those are the problems which affect us and we are deeply unhappy about them. They have a much wider significance than to the steel industry alone, because subsidiaries of some of those companies have been able to tender successfully from Italy and Spain to secure public contracts here—including, for example, the Severn bridge approach roads—by under-bidding United Kingdom contractors. That will go on until there is a level playing field.
Those who have paid the price of reconstruction—my constituents—are entitled to a fair chance to produce steel and to become as competitive as anyone else. We want also to be able to sell it in markets that are available.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sensitive to the fact that there are many hon. Members with direct steel interests in their constituencies who wish to speak, and I shall limit myself to some short remarks.
I shall make two preliminary points. First, I wish that the Government would stop congratulating themselves on their motions. I suppose that they think that if they did not do it, nobody else would. The Government motion says that the House
notes with approval the undertaking secured",
as though all Council meetings consisted of the British Government telling the other 11 what to do and getting them to respond to it. It is not always like that at all.
Secondly, it is worth remarking in passing—we are approaching the European elections and our place in Europe is being questioned—that the ECSC treaty, by subsidies and industry levies, has helped a great deal to ease the pain of the closure of steel mills and the loss of nearly half a million workers in the past 20 years in the Community, and that is worth saying.
The Minister must recognise that there is a great deal of scepticism about whether that will work, whether the latest round of subsidies will be the last or whether the capacity cuts will be real. That scepticism is against the background which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spelled out, of a painful time all over the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the closure of Ravenscraig was a tragic and painful experience for everybody. It is an expensive package and it works out, I am told, at about 1,250 ecu per tonne of cut capacity. In the case of Portugal, it goes up to 2,183 ecu. I am not complaining about that if it works, but it is essential that it works. The Minister talked about "no second helpings". He could also say, "Stick to the diet" as a complement.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made most of the arguments cogently and I shall add only one supplementary. The Minister said that monitoring reports would be produced by the Commission and will go to the Council of Ministers. As I understand it, those may not necessarily be made publicly available. The Council of Ministers is not a notoriously transparent and open organisation and I do not think that that makes accountability terrible easy. I would like the Minister to remark on that.
I repeat what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said about the Bremen factory, the Klocknerwerke, which went bankrupt last year. It discovered somehow that the Bremen Land can subsidise that and that it is not against German law. The Commission seems not to be sure whether it should be against European law or not.
My last point is that there is a problem with regard to the countries of central and eastern Europe. We are all agreed that we should do as much as we can to help those countries which emerged from communist totalitarianism. Everybody says that the great thing is not only aid, but trade. What can those countries trade in? They can trade in textiles, agricultural products, armaments and steel. We all know—it does not need me to spell it out—that there are difficulties in all those sectors, but most particularly in steel. What will the Government, and perhaps the Commission, do about that problem, which is boiling away and which one day soon must be faced?

Dr. Robert Spink: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain what his party's policy might be to secure a level playing field for steel in Europe and to secure the necessary capacity reduction? The Government have been fighting for that successfully. Is his party's policy to go belly-up on steel in Europe as they go belly-up on everything else in Europe?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am not trying to be terribly controversial—it is not in my nature. I shall simply say that we will not vote against the motion, as we see no point in doing so. If the Opposition felt that they wished to do so, they should have tabled an amendment spelling out alternatives. We accept that it is a difficult area, but I think that the Government can be questioned and criticised on certain aspects.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the special steel sector, which is of particular relevance to United Engineering Steels, the plants in my constituency and the associated industries in the Sheffield area. That sector of the steel industry provides no less than 70 per cent. of all the special steel supplies for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
There is no question but that, if that crucial sector of the steel industry goes, the UK's manufacturing base will be left without a UK special steel supplier, and that will have a significant effect on the United Kingdom manufacturing base. Therefore, we are not just talking about the steel industry, but about the welfare of the overall manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom.
I remind the Minister—if he needs any reminding—that the special steel sector has retained its profitability through the recession. During the past year, it has suffered from a variety of problems including the rise in the price of scrap metal for electric arc furnaces and the failure of the Government to control satisfactorily the price of energy for major manufacturing enterprises, such as those with electric arc furnace production. That has resulted in an electricity cost which is half as much again as that in the French electric arc steel-making industry.
I remind the Minister that jobs have gone: 200 jobs at UES Aldwarke and 200 jobs at Stocksbridge Engineering Steels in my constituency last year. Significantly, 190 jobs were lost at UCAR Carbon in my area, which is the only United Kingdom manufacturer of graphite electrodes, which are used in the electric arc steel-making enterprise. Special steel no longer has a United Kingdom manufacturer of graphite electrodes, so it has to import them. A drip-by-drip decline is taking place in the special steel capacity. It will have a major effect on the capacity of the United Kingdom manufacturing base.
I see our vote against the Government tonight as one that says that we have no confidence in the Government's policy. Their policy of the past two years has failed. It is one of being the odd man out in Europe. Britain is one country against the Eleven saying that everyone else is acting unfairly and that only we have the right policy for special steel. We say that everyone must come into line. The Opposition feel that the Government have failed to support the steel industry and manufacturing in research, in investment in new environmental technology, in action on energy costs and in action on training.
The Minister must realise that the jobs that are disappearing now in my constituency and the surrounding area are those of technicians and engineers. At a time when we are trying to boost our manufacturing base, to put on the dole those highly skilled, highly trained technicians and engineers who have the skills to bring the industry around again must be economic madness. My guess is that our European competitors and partners believe that a policy that allows that to happen in this country is one of economic madness.
All that I have heard today is a promise that more monitoring of the situation in Europe will reap results. We have no confidence that that alone will be enough and we look to a Government who will take major action to support this core element of our manufacturing industry.

Mr. Barry Jones: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and particularly those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who always speaks with great insight into one of Wales' greatest industries—steel.
The debate is about cheating on the continent and the need for fair play for Britain's steel industry. It is fundamentally about manufacturing in Great Britain. Manufacturing is wealth and wealth gives us our national health service, to name but one of the provisions that we expect in a civilised society. I conclude that we must ensure that we in Britain promote and further support our remaining steel plants. We need and we want a powerful and strong British steel industry.
Above all, I want to see Britain great again as an economic power. To be great again as an economic power, we must have a powerful, developing and modern manufacturing industry. Looking back at the period of disastrous stewardship of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and the then Secretary of State for Industry, Sir Keith Joseph, I recall that almost 2.75 million manufacturing jobs in Britain were allowed to drain away. Britain lost its ability to create many of its manufactured goods. We will pay a very heavy price for that in the years ahead.
I know steel to be a bedrock industry. We have made sacrifices in the steel industry and it is as well to consider some of them. Since 1975, 142,000 jobs have disappeared in Britain. That may be a conservative estimate. Certainly there has been a 77 per cent. reduction in the number of jobs in the steel industry. Until four years ago there was a steel works in Clwyd called Brymbo, which had about 1,400 employees. Overnight it was closed. Months later near there I saw a series of heavy, powerful motor trailers taking the remains of Brymbo steelworks—the furnaces and all—to the docks at Birkenhead, there to be transported to the Republic of China. The former Brymbo steelworks is now in part in China producing steel. That is a salutary tale.
There were enormous steel job losses in Wales at the still-great plants of Llanwern and Port Talbot. They are two of the finest steel plants in the world, but they have had their blood and their sacrifices. In my constituency, Shotton steelworks once supported a town or large village of some 14,000 or 15,000 steel workers. Now there are but 1,300 at the works. That again was a grievous blow to manufacturing in Wales.
The great plant at Ravenscraig no longer exists. There is no steel making in Scotland at Ravenscraig. It is fair to say that our steel communities have made enormous sacrifices and have taken terrible redundancies. In Deeside there are still more than 3,000 people out of work. Streets, estates and communities suffer long-term unemployment. Such communities throughout Wales and Britain have lost development area status and access to structural funds and they no longer have the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme.
For what have those sacrifices been made? Why have those tens of thousands of redundancies rained down on the British steel communities, with all their grievous social and economic consequences? In Britain, in Wales, in Scotland, in England, and on Deeside there have been sacrifices, closures and redundancies. The debate must send a message to Brussels. It must tell the continental nations who are not playing fair that we want fair play, we want justice, and we want a future. The British steel industry must have backing. We want to see further capacity cuts in Germany, Spain and Italy or else the end of subsidies to inefficient continental plants.
Are Ministers indifferent? I do not want to say that they are, but we have to say that the steel work force in Britain has to be rewarded for its efficiency, its sacrifices and its productivity. The Government have given the coal industry the kiss of death. British steelworkers are not impressed by the Government's handling of the steel industry's problems. We want to enhance, not to curtail, the British steel industry. We do not want more redundancies or any more cuts in our capacity. We do not want any more plant closures.

Mr. Roy Hughes: These European Community documents are something of a contrast. Essentially, they concern Italian steel companies and companies in other countries, such as Germany and Spain, which seem to be transgressing EC rules.
I am concerned about their possible effect on British Steel. What has happened in the Italian steel industry has been a direct threat to our domestic steel industry. I have no wish to make a racist attack on the Italians, but they seem to have scant regard for EC rules. As far as I have been able to make out from the documents, Ilva, the Italian steel producer, is wholly owned by IRI, the Italian state holding company which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) reminded us, goes back to the days of Mussolini. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I visited some of those operations more than 20 years ago.
I also learned from the documents that Ilva's debts exceed the value of its assets, which is rather extraordinary. Furthermore, the Minister for Industry tells us that the European steel industry is suffering from substantial over-capacity and depressed prices. I fail to understand why action was not taken earlier to deal with the Italian steel industry. The British steel industry was rationalised well over a decade ago, with all the hardship that that caused. The Government's motion is altogether too smug.
In recent months, I have been pursuing the request by the illegally subsidised Italian steel company Arc-Sipra, which has asked the Department of Transport to put it on its list of approved suppliers. Asset International—a steel company in my constituency—was most concerned about


the Italian threat. The Italians wanted to get a foot in our door to dump products in the United Kingdom at prices below cost and to steal our markets. I understand that they have already done so in France. Those tactics could certainly harm Asset International in my constituency, let alone British Steel's Llanwern plant, which is so important to the economy of south-east Wales.
The Department of Transport has acknowledged that approaches have been made, and states that it is considering what action can be taken to exclude companies that are in receipt of illegal state aid.
The Government must take positive action to stop those pirate activities. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that British steelworkers and their trade union are calling on the Government to use their veto to save our steel industry in the same way that the French Government use theirs over agriculture? A campaign is also being launched to urge companies in this country to buy British steel. In the present circumstances, that certainly makes sense.
Unfortunately, the Government have made a difficult situation worse by their decision in January to contract out of the iron and steel employees' re-adaptation benefit scheme—ISERBS. The effects of that Government decision are already being felt in south Wales and other steelmaking areas. Recently, 351 workers were made redundant at Ebbw Vale and Trostre. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has been very concerned about that.
When those workers requested parity of treatment with other European steelworkers, they were turned down, which means that those 351 redundant south Wales steelworkers will each lose between £10,000 and £15,000. What a disgrace, and what an indictment of the Government's policies. The Minister talks about the industry being successful, but all the workers are getting is a smack in the eye.

Mr. Llew Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that trade union representatives have met the Government to find out whether they have reconsidered their decision about ISERBS? Is he also aware that the answer was no, which puts those 300 to 350 redundant people in my constituency and in Trostre in a terrible situation, especially as they are in one of the most deprived areas in Wales—an area with some of the worst unemployment in Wales? The jobs coming into the constituency are low-paid, part-time, menial and nonunion, and there is no way that they will replace the jobs lost in the coal and steel industries. The Government's refusal to reconsider their decision is another smack in the face for those workers.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend describes the position very well. Even at this late stage, will the Minister reconsider his position on the ISERBS scheme? Our steel industry is badly in need of it in the difficult times that are looming.

Mr. Michael Bates: From recollection, the average cost of ISERBS is £20,000 per steelworker. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give, and what would he say, to a constituent who lost his job but did not work in the steel industry and thus did not qualify for any money? Why should that worker be differentiated from a British Steel worker?

Mr. Hughes: Our steelworkers are entitled to expect parity with steelworkers on the continent. They are asking no more than that, and it seems a pretty fair demand.
Last week, the Conservative party and the Government took a real thrashing in the local elections. They were just about wiped out in Newport, which is a steel-making community.
Our steel communities have suffered greatly. There have been massive redundancies and steel areas in other parts of the country have also been affected. If there is any justice, it is now up to European producers to rationalise their industries and not engage in unfair and illegal trading practices. All our steelworkers are asking for is a level playing field. They are engaged in a lean and fit industry, which can compete in world markets. The Government need to ensure that those workers get proper backing.

Mr. Elliot Morley: This deal does not go far enough, and it is totally unsatisfactory in view of the situation of the steel industry in this country and in Europe.
In the early 1980s, more than 22,000 people were employed in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. Now, it is about 7,000. The Scunthorpe works and the ancillary works of the United Merchant bar mill—UMB—and the Allied Steel and wire rod mill are some of the most efficient works in Europe, but that efficiency has been bought by the jobs of thousands of people and has had a knock-on effect on the local community in Scunthorpe and on all communities dependent on steel.
Steel Action was set up for that reason, and was supported by 25 local authorities, because they can see the threat posed to our steel areas because steel has not been restructured in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, we have had a decade to do something, but there has been precious little action from the Government to deal with that very real problem.
Not one British steelworker's job should be lost as a result of illegal or inefficient subsidies to other European steelworks. We do not want to see other steelworkers thrown on the scrapheap as our workers have been, but the deal struck should have concentrated more on restructuring, retraining and jobs than on capacity.
The Minister's claim that this successful deal has been welcomed is not borne out by an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 28 March, which stated:
Although Mr. Bangemann's entourage insists it is delighted that the industry has apparently met the European Commission's demands for further steel reductions, in private officials admit the deal may have been little more than a face—saving camouflage.
We can see why when we study the details of the deal.
Monitoring is one of the key aspects of the motion, but I have heard nothing from the Minister to reassure me that adequate monitoring will be conducted to ensure that steel companies—particularly Italian ones—make capacity reductions properly. I believe that Ilya hid an entire reheating furnace when the Commission was trying to judge its capacity.
I understand that the whole deal went through because of concessions from the United Kingdom Government. Why did the Minister offer them? It is understandable that countries such as Italy should stick out for the best deal for their steel producers and work forces in depressed areas: nevertheless, they are dependent on the total aid package


available from the deal. Surely that fact gave the Minister some cards that he should have played more skilfully when the deal was struck.
The deal consists of enormous aid packages, but it does not deal with certain anomalies. For example, Ilva received £1.9 million in illegal subsidies through capital injections in 1991–92. Will those illegal capital injections be taken into account in the overall package? I see no evidence to suggest that that will happen.
As a result of the deal, the cut in production from the Bagnoli hot strip mill is being counted as a capacity reduction of 300,000 tonnes per annum, but that mill has been mothballed for two years. If it is counted in the overall package it will not make any major contribution to capacity cuts.
It is not surprising that the Select Committee on European Legislation said:
The deal struck at the Industry Council was unsatisfactory.
It emphasised that the capacity cuts would have little effect on production capacity. I am not surprised that Mr. Moffat, who used his words carefully, described the original deal as a "sham". A study of the small print explains why.
Although a capacity reduction of 5.3 million tonnes is supposed to be achieved, because of the examples that I have cited, the actual figure will be nearer 2.5 million tonnes. The price of that reduction will be about £5 billion. That enormous amount of money should have been directed at aids to the work force to help them look for new jobs, and at encouraging alternative employment in depressed areas.
The Minister may talk about effective monitoring, but I understand that the reports that the Commission will produce as a result of the deal will not be made public, but will be secret. That hardly represents effective monitoring. Independent groups will be unable to discover what progress has been made towards capacity cuts.
In Bremen, the local council has bought the strip mill at Klockner. Is that subsidy from the local council illegal? I would not want to criticise that local council, because I understand that it has done what it can to save local jobs for local people. It is interesting to note that a local council in Germany has the autonomy, power and skills to do that, whereas our local councils are being neutered by an over-centralising Government.
The deal does not go far enough to protect the work force of the steel industry. It does not offer the kind of support that is needed for our steel industry, which is the backbone of our manufacturing industry. For 15 years, little support or attention has been given to our manufacturing base. Now we are paying the price for that and witnessing the consequences.
To add insult to injury, ISERBS is to be phased out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East has said. The very same Minister who sits in the Council of Ministers and votes huge sums of money to our European competitors is taking away money that could aid steelworkers who still face redundancy, many of them as a result of Government inaction in the past 15 years.
The Government's policy in Europe has been a complete failure. It is little wonder that we get such bad deals when we have so few friends in Europe. It is little wonder that we have so few friends, when all we get from the Government is a negative response. We have an opt-out, cop-out Government who care little for our manufacturing base, for building alliances and for the future of our communities that depend on steel.

Mr. Fatchett: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on the knowledge and experience that they have brought to the debate. It was clear from their contributions that they have an intimate knowledge of the steel industry and the communities based on it.
Anyone who reads the debate in Hansard will be hit by one striking fact; throughout the debate not one Government Back Bencher felt interested enough in the steel industry to speak in defence of the Government's policies. That reflects a deeper—

Mr. Bates: I spoke.

Mr. Fatchett: Only in an intervention. We did not hear a speech from one Conservative Back Bencher, which not only reflects the Government's lack of interest in the steel industry, but their deep lack of interest in manufacturing.

Mr. Bates: Surely our silence reflects our confidence in the Minister's ability to fight our corner in Europe. It was astonishing to listen to speeches from Labour Members who said that they wanted to send a message to Brussels that we want to get tough on subsidies when they will vote against a motion that says just that. What sort of message is that?

Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member, because he must be the only Conservative Back Bencher who can get up and say, with a straight face and without any sense of embarrassment, that he has absolute confidence in his Government. That degree of political skill and sycophancy may do him a lot of good in the future. The underlying fact that has emerged from the debate is that the Conservative party is so inward looking and so deeply split that it does not have time to look up and consider the real issues that face our steel and manufacturing industries.

Mr. Llew Smith: Can my hon. Friend explain why we should feel confidence in the Government and their so-called defence of the steel industry when that campaign resulted recently in another 159 jobs lost in Ebbw Vale and a similar number lost in Trostre? Does my hon. Friend get the impression that other steel-making countries are laughing at us because we are willing to go along with quotas and regulations, when other countries refuse to do so in defence of their industries? Does my hon. Friend believe that the British Government should defend the steel industry as the French Government are willing to defend their industries?

Mr. Fatchett: That important point ran through my hon. Friends' speeches, and I shall refer to it later.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I have sat through the debate? I have done so because I wanted to hear the Opposition's alternative policy to the Government's successful policies, which have achieved a level playing field and reductions in steel capacity in Europe for the benefit of our industry. Those policies have not yet been forthcoming.
I hope that we shall hear those policies, so that we may have the opportunity to comment on them in our interventions. Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he follows the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in calling for public funds to subsidise that sector of British industry? If so, does he have the shadow Chancellor's agreement to that?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has an ability to find success where success does not exist. To speak about the success of this Government's policies in relation to protecting the British steel industry very much distorts the truth. [Interruption.]
One of the other themes that ran through the speeches made by my hon. Friends was the Government's attitude towards ISERBS. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a telling point about the Government's attitude when he referred to the 351 redundancies at Ebbw Vale and Trostre and said that each employee there will lose £10,000 to £15,000. Does it not tell us a great deal about the Government that, at a time when they introduce tax cuts for the very rich, they can still take from redundant steelworkers rights that they have enjoyed in recent years?
When the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) says that those rights are not enjoyed by other people and therefore should not be enjoyed by the steel industry, he reflects, does he not, the attitude of the Conservative party throughout history to any social improvement and change? The Conservative party has always been in favour of levelling down rather than improving. The hon. Gentleman wants to take away from the steelworkers in his constituency the rights that they have enjoyed. Will the hon. Gentleman go round his constituency, telling steelworkers there that they should lose £10,000 to £15,000? Is he doing that?

Mr. Bates: The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's statement about the Conservatives being in favour of levelling down, implying that the Labour party is in favour of levelling up. Is he suggesting that all people who lose their jobs ought to have a £15,000 to £20,000 retraining package?

Mr. Fatchett: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time. It was obviously a mistake, because the second intervention was no better than the first.
The nature of Britain's social history is that the Labour party has tried to improve social conditions and the Conservative party has always tried to level down. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the rights of steelworkers were typical of the history of his party and its current ideological position.
The Government's attitude to ISERBS shows a meanness and a weakness on the Government's part.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statement by the Government in the autumn of last year that the ISERBS scheme was no longer useful to steelworkers in the area was nothing short of disgraceful? Is he aware that no fewer than 4,000 workers—4,000 people—from United Engineering Steels have benefited in the past few years, and that every one of them would endorse the view that the ISERBS scheme has been a major

benefit to them in their tragic situation? It is selling our work force short to say that that is no longer useful, when our European competitors are taking steps to extend the scheme for their workers.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct, and she makes the argument with telling knowledge about her constituency in the Sheffield area.
The key theme that ran through the speeches of all my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was the extent to which the British steel industry and the communities based on it have endured significant change and pain in the previous decade. Job losses have damaged communities. My hon. Friends spoke about those communities in Scotland, in Wales, in Humberside and in Teesside, where there have been job losses, great change and great social stress as a result.
All my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, said that that pain had not been fairly distributed. It is a pain that has come to an industry which has changed, which has improved, which is now a world leader, but it is a pain that has come disproportionately to British steel, and there is, in the jargon, as my hon. Friends have said, no clear level playing field in terms of competition.
That is the crucial argument that the Minister has to answer. All my hon. Friends said that we had been here before. The debate has taken place before; the issues have been aired in the House and outside before. The British steel industry cazn compete, but it cannot compete against subsidies and unfair competition. What will the Government do to ensure that the agreement that was reached in December, and has been further monitored and discussed subsequently, will be kept and implemented? That is the crucial question.
The words that came through from my hon. Friends were words of scepticism, because they wanted to know exactly what the Government intend to do if there is no delivery in terms of surplus capacity in other countries. My fear is that there will be no change in other countries: as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East said, this is not just a debate about the Italian steel industry; it affects each and every steel industry and steel community in the country. If the Government do not get it right, there will be more job losses, in Sheffield, in Wales and on Humberside, which will be a direct result of the Government failing to protect the British steel industry.
My final question to the Minister is as follows. We have little faith in the agreement. We have little faith that it will be implemented and enforced. What we want to know is, what happens if that agreement fails, as other agreements and other words have failed in the past?
This is an important debate. Opposition Members are saying tonight that the British steel industry is important to our manufacturing base. It is the essence of our wealth production in the future. That is why we take the position that we do. We want our industry, a world leader, to be able to compete fairly and openly with similar industries in other countries. We do not believe that that chance is there, and we believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that that opportunity is available. So far, the Minister and the Government have simply failed to deliver that level playing field. It is not words we want, but action from the Government.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johston) asked the Opposition to spell out alternatives. I thought that he made a fair argument. He said that his party would not vote against the motion and I wondered why Labour Members were planning to do so. He, I feel, should not have been surprised at the failure of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), with two opportunities to do so, to spell out the alternatives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) also noticed that lack of alternative. He probably shared my lack of surprise, however, at the failure of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to produce an alternative, for the simple reason that he has no alternative. He blustered away, but he has no alternative.
Perhaps I am not being fair to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps there is an alternative that he did not want to tell us about. He made one revealing remark. He said that the Government have not offered their support in the way in which other continental and European Community Governments have. Other Opposition Members made it clear that they were well aware—even if the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was not—of the type of support that some European Community Governments had offered their steel industries. They had offered their steel industries massive subsidies. It was not clear to me whether the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was succumbing once more to that road to ruin.

Mr. Hughes: The Government have been in power for 15 years, and our steel industry suffered badly more than a decade ago. Why have not the Government ensured parity of treatment between our steel industry and others, particularly in Italy? They have given our steelworkers a smack in the eye by getting rid of ISERBS.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) insults our steelworkers by suggesting that they should have parity with Italian steelworkers. The Italian steel industry is the most overmanned, inefficient and uncompetitive in the world. As a result of the Government's policies, our steel industry is as competitive and efficient as any in the world.
Under the last Labour Government, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel, and the steel industry absorbed massive subsidies and lost a great deal of taxpayers' money, whereas under our policies the steel industry requires fewer than five man hours to produce a tonne of steel. In spite of what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, our steel industry is the world's fourth largest, and is as efficient as any in the world.
The Opposition have failed to justify opposing the motion. The hon. Member for Newport, East suggested that we should veto the deal. I thought that, like the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party wanted to abandon the veto. That would be very helpful in those circumstances.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister asks why we oppose the Government's line on the steel industry. Two examples of recent weeks concern Ebbw Vale and Trostre, which have resulted in a further 350 redundancies. The steelworkers in those communities are arguing that, were the Government willing to stand up for the steel industry as the French stand up for their industries, those 350 redundancies would not be necessary. Also, we are not supporting the Government

also because they are too mean to give those 350 people, who will now be on the scrap heap, the ISERBS they deserve to relieve their position. They represent and are living in some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sainsbury: The motion is not about ISERBS and, as far as I can gather from what the hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Members have said, the Opposition want the extension of subsidies not only to encourage overmanning and inefficiency in the steel industry but to provide massive and unhelpful aid.
May I explain to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) that that aid is unhelpful because it does not help redundant steelworkers to return to employment. The Opposition want to give such unhelpful aid to everybody who loses his or her job. Will the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) work out what that would add to the burden of public debt?

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Has the Minister any idea of the difference between subsidies and support for a major manufacturing industry? I speak of support in terms of research and European grants for environmental technology. The Government have done nothing along those lines to support the key overheads of that core industry. Does the Minister have an answer to that type of support, which other European Governments successfully give their steel industries?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do have an idea. Those European Governments now realise that they can no longer afford those large subsidies. As a result of pouring subsidies into their industries, they have overmanned and uncompetitive industries, on which they must now cut back. Changing the name from "subsidy" to "support" does not change the nature of the beast. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, and a subsidy is just as wasteful.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) expressed a welcome to the points agreed at the December council. I thank him for that recognition. It may be another split in the Labour party—another disagreement between those with experience on the Back Benches and those without it on the Front.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about Saarstahl. I find the position there as unsatisfactory as he does. It was made clear not only by me but by other Ministers at the last Industry Council that we did not regard it as acceptable that the German Government should shelter behind their bankruptcy laws effectively to provide subsidies to allow their company to continue in operation when it was losing large sums of money.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about Klocknerstahl. Our complaint, supported by other Community Governments, about Klocknerstahl is still under investigation by the Commission. Some reports have said that the Commission will allow Klocknerstahl to retain the steel-making capacity which it had earlier demanded be closed as part of the original debt restructuring plan.
When the company first filed for bankruptcy protection, the Commission, in the shape of DG XVIII, was among its creditors. The Commission agreed to restructure the debt in exchange for the definitive closure of one blast furnace and the reduction of 500,000 tonnes of hot strip capacity. A date was not set for the definitive closure, but the company has been held to the production limits.
Negotiations are now at an advanced stage for another steel company, Sidmar, to participate in the restructuring. The Commission has said that it would accept the reduction of alternative closures if that would help to rationalise the merged companies. But it has insisted that any replacement capacity cuts must be in the same product sectors, and affect plant in current use.
I agree with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who referred to the Italians counting the reduction at Bagnoli as a reduction in current capacity. We should not like to have agreed that. However, in respect of that, as of other matters that were less than satisfactory in the agreement, the alternative to reaching that agreement, which could be brought about by using the veto which Opposition Members want us to abandon, would have been the continuation of those subsidies for a considerable time and no capacity reductions.
Moreover, we would not have obtained the most satisfactory feature of that agreement, which is a monitoring arrangement that is stricter, more rigorous and more capable of being overseen than anything that we have had before.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: No, I must complete my speech.
It is a major step forward that the agreement requires a report to the council. There is a good reason for not making the monitoring reports public: they contain a lot of sensitive commercial information. For the first time, however, they will be made available to the Council of Ministers, which also means to my officials, who can scrutinise exactly what is happening.
That has never happened before. It gives us a much better prospect of achieving what we set out to achieve, which is a level playing field for an efficient British steel industry that deserves our support, rather than the criticism that it has received from the Opposition.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 212.

Division No. 231]
[8.27 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Booth, Hartley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Bates, Michael
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lament, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Major, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mates, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harvey, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thomason, Roy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rendel, David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Sykes, John



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Barren, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (CovySE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F.
Darling, Alistair


Benton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boateng, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Cann, Jamie
Fatchett, Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Faulds, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Flynn, Paul





Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Motley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, John
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Graham, Thomas
Olner, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gunnell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hain, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Mike
Pike, Peter L.


Hanson, David
Pope, Greg


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, John


Hoey, Kate
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoon, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hutton, John
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Rooker, Jeff


Ingram, Adam
Rooney, Terry


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rowlands, Ted


Jamieson, David
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Keen, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S.
Soley, Clive


Kilfoyle, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spellar, John


Lewis, Terry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Litherland, Robert
Stevenson, George


Livingstone, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McCartney, Ian
Walley, Joan


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N


McKelvey, William
Watson, Mike


Mackinlay, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Alice
Wise, Audrey


Mandelson, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Meacher, Michael
Wright, Dr Tony


Meale, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michael, Alun



Milburn, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Miller, Andrew
Mr. John Cummings and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93, relating to the Italian state iron and steel industry; endorses the Government's decision


to support the agreement reached on the package of state aid cases discussed at the Industry Council on 17th December 1993; notes with approval the undertakings secured at the Council regarding the stringent monitoring of approved aids, which will help to ensure that they are not used to disadvantage unaided competitors, the commitment to the strict application of ECSC state aid rules to end subsidisation, the recognition that there will be no further aid to these companies if viability is not achieved, and the early privatisation of most of the companies involved; and endorses this agreement as a useful step towards ending the distortion of state subsidies in the steel industry.

Orders of the Day — Equal Pay and Equal Treatment

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6703/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Employment Department on 21st October 1993, relating to the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for women and men; endorses the Government's view that the draft Directive breaches the principle of subsidiarity and would have a disproportionate impact in the United Kingdom; shares the Government's view that the proposed Directive is wrong in principle and unnecessary for the proper determination of cases; agrees with the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties, and take proper account of the problems of evidence and the need to reach fair decisions with due regard to the interests of both parties; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should not be adopted.
I find it simply incomprehensible that the Community is now considering yet again the directive on the burden of proof. The directive was laid to rest as unworkable and unacceptable as long ago as 1988. It lay dead for five years until the Belgian presidency resurrected it last July as one of three Lazarus directives that it wanted to bring to life. Now, when it looks like being consigned to the tomb once more, the Burke and Hare tendency on the Opposition Benches wants to prevent a decent burial by trying to breath new life into the body.
The simple fact is that the directive has nothing whatsoever to do with the real priorities facing the 12 member states. Unemployment is now at record levels across the Community, and in all countries except the UK the figures for unemployment among women are higher than those for men.
Whenever we consider the social agenda in the Community, we must put questions of unemployment at the top of the list. Europe needs to stop adding to the regulations for people in employment and to start helping the people who are without employment of any kind. What we want is action which supports, not hinders, the efforts of member states to return to sustainable economic growth and provide real employment opportunities for men and women alike.
Despite the resurrection of measures such as the directive, things are beginning to change in Europe. The debates about growth and competitiveness in the Community stemming from the Commission's white paper last year show that the distinctive UK message is beginning to hit home. All member states recognise that Europe's labour markets are simply not delivering the jobs we need. That is good; Britain has long been saying that.
Member states are recognising that labour costs are too high and damage the growth in jobs. That is good, too—again, a British message. Member states are recognising that employers must be given the flexibility to compete with the rest of the world. Britain has always said that a policy of Fortress Europe would spell disaster for our prospects.
All proposals from the Community therefore need to be measured against three fundamental principles if they are to meet the needs of a changing Europe. The directive fails against all three.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: If everything the Minister says is true, why do the other 11 member states all support the directive?

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman: he usually takes care to read these texts. If he reads the text of the directive, he will find that other member states have managed to opt out of the provisions. There are exemptions covering those countries because of their differing legal systems. So they are quite happy to support a measure that lumbers Britain with the problem. Unfortunately, Opposition Members do not fight for Britain, do not speak for Britain and will sign up for anything.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is not Britain pursuing its historic role of vetoing a measure that is unpopular in other member states, which pretend to be in favour of it knowing that we shall do so?

Mr. Forsyth: No, that is not so. My hon. Friend will know that we have used our veto, which Opposition Members would throw away, and the Eleven will proceed with the directive as Eleven. If Opposition Members had had their way, we would have signed up for the social chapter and would not now be in a position to resist this ridiculous measure, which fails all three tests.
All action taken by the Community should not damage but promote Europe's competitiveness; the directive is a distraction from that. Community social policy needs to recognise Europe's diversity—the very different traditions, institutions and practises of 12 very different member states. The directive ignores our differences by trying to move to a single statutory model.
Community policy needs to be consistent with subsidiarity. Nothing shows that this issue requires action at Community level. No evidence has been produced to show that differences in the way in which legal systems operate affect Community obligations. On the contrary, Heads of Government have made it clear that the legal systems of member states should not be called into question.
What is all too predictable, however, is that the Opposition are now giving the directive their support. Here we go again. Labour would sign anything, whatever its cost or whatever damage it would do. Let us think what we would have been saddled with in recent years if the Opposition had had their way: a working time directive, which would have banned work on Sundays.

Mr. John Prescott: Yes.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member says yes, but that directive would have banned work on Sundays and robbed 2.5 million people of the chance to earn overtime pay.
A young workers' directive would have threatened the long United Kingdom tradition of allowing children to earn pocket money by delivering newspapers or by doing a Saturday job.

Mr. Prescott: What would the working time have done for the doctors?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman, who, as a Front-Bench spokesman, should know better, says, "What

would the working time have done for the doctors?" If he had read the text of the directive, he would be aware that there is a specific exemption.

Mr. Prescott: The Government are the employer.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that we are the employer. It is a matter for the House and the Government to decide; it is not for others outside the House to dictate working time or conditions in our country. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition.
If the Opposition had had their way, a part-time work directive would have priced many part-time jobs out of the reach of employers.
A European works council directive would have given the unions the whip hand in 330 major UK-based multinational companies. United Kingdom employers and employees alike can be grateful that they have a Government who fight for their interests and do not surrender them at the first call from Brussels. That is what would have happened if the United Kingdom had accepted the social chapter at Maastricht and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not been successful in securing an opt-out, which Opposition Members would throw away.
Equal opportunity measures such as this directive would have been subject to qualified majority voting, despite the fact that the directive is aimed almost exclusively at the British system. A British Government would have been unable to protect themselves from this directive being imposed over their head. We used the British veto against the directive once before in 1988 and we can do so again to protect vital national interests. The Opposition would cast that veto aside.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain attracts almost half the total inward investment in the European Community, the other half being shared among the other 11 members of the Union? Does he think that the directive would almost certainly damage our ability to attract that investment and would therefore damage jobs in this country?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that Britain is as successful as all the other member states put together in attracting inward investment, which is vital for jobs. The man to whom we should look for the explanation is that well-known socialist, Jacques Delors, who said that, because the Prime Minister had secured the opt-out from the social chapter, Britain would become a paradise for inward investment. He was right—not even Jacques Delors is wrong about everything—and my hon. Friend is right to point out that we have benefited from the success of our policies.
The directive is completely irrelevant in addressing the fundamental issues facing the Community. The Commission says that it is necessary because women are at a disadvantage in bringing sex discrimination claims. It says that women cannot prove their case because employers have all the evidence and that tribunals are reluctant to draw inferences from the facts: bunkum and balderdash, I say to that.
If the Commission had taken the trouble, which it did not, to inquire about the United Kingdom system, it might have thought twice before proposing this silly measure. It did not do so. Instead, it wants to put British employers in


the dock, condemned guilty of sex discrimination unless they can prove themselves innocent. That is what the text of the directive means.

Mr. Alex Carlile: For those of us who are trying to look at the issues in this matter, will the Minister explain, so that we can understand what the Government are saying, the difference between the directive and decisions such as Chattopadhyay v. Headmaster of Holloway school, which I am sure he will have considered? How does the directive differ from the state of the law as it is now?

Mr. Forsyth: What the country needs to know—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer—is that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends in the Liberal party would sign away the veto and the House would have no say in whether the proposals applied to this country. The answer to his question—the hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and should know it—is that there is all the difference in the world between the impact of a judgment in the courts and a directive such as this, which would apply the universal principle of reversing the burden of proof.

Mr. Prescott: What case law?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should focus on what the directive says. I can understand the Liberals supporting it, but I am surprised that Labour supports a measure that reaches this level of absurdity.
The Opposition amendment seeks to set aside the centuries-old principle that is central to our system of justice. No evidence has been presented to show that there is a problem. Lord Slynn of Hadley has made it clear on behalf of himself and the all-party sub-committee in the other place that the Government's opposition to the directive's central purpose remains valid. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his hon. Friends appear less clear-headed. They have become deeply infected by the Commission's enthusiasm for this measure. The amendment supports—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Forsyth: In a moment, if the hon. and learned Gentleman can contain himself; if he persists, I shall not give way.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend after I have given way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and when I have completed the point that I want to put to the Opposition. Opposition Members do not want to hear it spelt out.
They are taking an astonishing position which suggests a complete lack of appreciation of the strength of the United Kingdom's system for dealing with complaints about sex discrimination and equal pay.The UK has a strong and comprehensive framework of law which goes far beyond what other member states provide. There is no need for the directive or for us to abandon the principle of innocent until proved guilty.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman appears to turn our understanding of the law on its head. What is the difference in effect on the Government between decisions by the employment appeals tribunal, which is a superior court of record, and the directive, if its provisions were brought into force, and decisions of the courts of the European Community?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, if the House agreed to such a directive and produced legislation, the burden of proof in every sex discrimination case would be reversed. It would be universal. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there are limited occasions on which the reversal of the burden of proof will apply, but, as he knows, the directive is about applying it universally. It is wrong for him to seek to fudge that. If he had his way, the House would have no say on this and many other matters, because he would have sold out our veto and the sovereignty of this place.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there were references in Chattopadhyay to where inferences could be drawn, in case after case since Chattopadhyay the courts and the employment appeals tribunal have stressed that in British law the burden of proof does not shift.The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is not listening. The directive seeks to do something totally different.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his free legal advice. It is much appreciated. I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows the position perfectly well. It is that Britain has effective frameworks such as ACAS, the Equal Opportunities Commission and industrial tribunals to establish the facts and apply the relevant law. They operate on the principle that the applicant has to prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities. That principle has been whole-heartedly accepted by all parties until now, but now we know where the Opposition stand. They are prepared to ditch an important principle for a great leap in the dark.
The Opposition want confusion instead of common sense, and it is common sense that guides industrial tribunals. They have received guidance from the Court of Appeal about the burden of proof. An industrial tribunal simply looks at the evidence as a whole and decides whether a complaint has been established. Sometimes clear evidence of discrimination will not be available, but tribunals are perfectly capable of dealing with that by drawing inferences from the facts. That is a common-sense approach that works perfectly well and tribunals apply it every day.
The Government will fight to ensure that employers remain innocent until proved guilty. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East scoffs as if this were some minor matter. That shows why he will remain on the Opposition Benches and will not be in government. We will simply not accept a measure that seeks to put every employer in the position in which, on the flimsiest of evidence, an aggrieved party can force him to prove his innocence.

Mr. Hoon: If we accept what the Minister says about the state of the law, what does he say about the Law Society's observations—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is so much noise from the Opposition Front Bench that I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's intervention. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must respect the courtesies of the House.

Mr. Hoon: What does the Minister say about the Law Society's observations on the directive? It says that the directive would help to clarify the law and that such a change would produce greater consistency in decisions of industrial tribunals.

Mr. Forsyth: I have not seen the reasoning behind that. The Law Society says many things. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about Lord Slynn of Hadley and the all-party sub-committee which agreed with the Government. That is a fairly authoritative source. I look forward with some enthusiasm to hearing the explanation by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of the Opposition policy which Opposition Members must try to defend. I dare say that that is the strongest argument they can produce.

Sir Teddy Taylor: While I wish to convey my enthusiasm for the splendid sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, will he make it clear that, if we followed the Law Society's recommendations and changed our law, we could change it back next year if it did not work? If we allowed the European people to alter our law, we could not change it. That is terribly important.

Mr. Forsyth: I think that I should be where my hon. Friend is, and that my hon. Friend should be here. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He puts the argument clearly and precisely—I could not have put it better myself. I want the House and the country, if it is listening, to know what Opposition Members would hand over.
Let us get down to brass tacks. How would the proposal work? An employer would advertise for someone to fill a vacancy and a man and a woman would apply. On this occasion, the employer chooses the man because he is the best candidate. That ought to be the end of the matter. Not so under the directive. If the woman could show that she had the minimum qualifications necessary, her case would be made in the eyes of those who drafted the directive. Never mind the employer's judgment that she was not the better candidate. Simply by not being selected, she would establish a prima facie case under the directive and the entire burden of proving no discrimination would shift to the employer. Unless the employer could produce convincing evidence that the complainant was not discriminated against, she would win. That is amazing and totally unacceptable.
As if that was not reason enough to consign the measure to the dustbin, there are others to show how misguided is the Opposition's support. The directive would have an uneven impact across the European Union because it exempts procedures based on inquisitorial systems of justice that are common in most other member states—for example Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourg. Other countries whose systems are a mixture of inquisitorial and adversarial—Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal and Greece—could also claim exemption. The directive would bear heavily on the United Kingdom's adversarial system. France, Italy, Greece and Spain have all secured their

lifeboats while the Opposition are scuppering a British system that stands scrutiny alongside that of any member state.
The vagueness and ambiguity of the directive would introduce confusion into an important area of the law. I am too kind and honourable to give way to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley so that she could explain exactly how an industrial tribunal would apply article 4. Has she studied article 4? What does it mean? Does the hon. Lady know what it means? The plain fact is that the directive is confused and not needed.
Our record of providing employment opportunities is the best in the European Union.

Mr. Prescott: Oh!

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman scoffs. Why does he not examine Britain's success? In Britain, more and more women are working. The number of women in employment here has risen 16 per cent. since Labour Members were last in office. That represents more than 1 million extra jobs for women under this Government. Opposition Members have nothing to teach us in that regard. There are now more women in paid employment in Britain than in any other European member state except Germany.

Mr. Eric Illsley: The Minister suggests that the British system works and does not need change. Is he aware that the National Union of Mineworkers has been pursuing a claim for equal value for canteen workers for 16 years, but it has still not been resolved and has yet to go before the Court of Appeal? Surely the Minister does not believe that the system is foolproof.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree that there have been problems in pursuing claims, in terms of timing and so on. That is for the House to put right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is addressing some of the proposals made by the Equal Opportunities Commission, but that has nothing to do with the directive. If there is a Division, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby. He should recognise that it is for the House to decide the systems that operate in this country and that his party would sign all that away and give up our veto—which the Government are maintaining. We will use to ensure a system that reflects the interests of the United Kingdom and employment opportunities here.
Since 1979, women's average weekly earnings have risen in cash terms 300 per cent. and in real terms 55 per cent. faster than those of men. That impressive record has been achieved because the Government steadfastly pursued the right policies, leading to a dynamic and flexible labour market, underpinned by an effective framework of law. Under this Government, the UK labour market is able to offer a wide range of opportunities, and women have taken advantage of them. The Government will continue to pursue those policies and to make more opportunities available. We will not accept damaging proposals such as the directive.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, To leave out from "men" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
refutes the assertion by the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex


discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties: supports the principle of reversing the burden of proof in this area; condemns the pressure, mostly from the UK Government resulting in the original draft Directive being diluted; is perturbed that the wider definition of indirect discrimination contained within the original draft has been removed and that Article 4 of the new draft introduces the concept of 'objective justification' into cases of direct sex discrimination; and calls for the redrafting of the Directive to reflect the proposals outlined in the original version.
I imagine that the Minister's bluster over the past 20 minutes has been more to do with his dislike of the European Union than of the directive. I recall that, when I last debated European legislation that promoted the rights of part-time workers, in Committee upstairs, the Minister was at pains to distance himself from his Christian Democratic colleagues in the European Parliament, describing them as too socialist for the liking of the "party opposite". I suspect that if we are looking for a stalking horse, we could do no better than promote the Minister's chances in the race ahead.
I cannot accept the Minister's bluster when we are discussing a directive that is of supreme importance and offers an opportunity to discuss the undervaluing of the contribution that women make to the economy and society. The deficiencies in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 are all too obvious to the eye of any objective observer.
I cannot accept the Minister's crocodile tears over jobs. The Conservative party has just deprived 200 men in my constituency, who work in a highly profitable and productive industry, of jobs. The Conservatives did not shed any tears over making sure that those men lost their jobs. In fact, by pursuing a deceitful argument and programme, they eventually pushed them out of their jobs.
It is not up to the Minister to give the Labour party any lessons on the importance of employment to people in our constituencies, because we have seen the effects of the Government's policies in every single one of them. So please give us no lessons on the importance of jobs; we have seen the effects of long-term unemployment, not only on those who have lost their jobs, but on their families as well, and no jobs have come to areas that have lost thousands of jobs, for example, in the coal and the steel industries in the past 15 years.
Despite the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, women continue to be undervalued and underpaid. They still face unnecessary barriers at work. They fail to gain equal treatment at work and are denied equal pay. Again, the Minister boasted about women and their pay. The figures show that pay differentials between men and women are greater in the United Kingdom than in any other European country. For manual workers in industry, female earnings represent just over two thirds of average male earnings. For non-manual workers in that sector, female earnings represent only 58.3 per cent. of average male earnings—lower than any in other country shown except Luxembourg. If the Minister wants to make any claims about pay, he should address himself to those tables, which are available in the Library if not to the Department of Employment.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has looked at the statistics on men and women's pay, moving up towards and including 1970 when the Equal Pay Act was introduced. They show that women's

pay was getting closer and closer to men's pay until the Equal Pay Act; then, for more than two decades, it went in the opposite direction.

Mrs. Clwyd: That is a very interesting argument indeed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the table in the Library, which shows that, since this Government came into office, the gap between men's and women's pay has grown wider instead of closer. That is nothing to do with the Equal Pay Act; it is to do with the Government and their policies towards women.
The right to equal treatment is a fundamental right for all workers in the European Union. There is a legal duty on all member states to provide effective measures to ensure that those principles are applied. Yet, since 1979, the United Kingdom Government have paid only lip service to attempts to reduce discrimination.
Despite having a woman Prime Minister for 11 of the past 15 years—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—only one woman was appointed to the Cabinet, and she was sacked after a year. I am interested in the support for the 'previous Prime Minister. If that support were available from the Conservative Benches for the present Prime Minister, he would not find himself in his present vulnerable position.
I must say one kind word about the present Prime Minister: he is a leader in one respect. He was the first person holding that office since 1964 to appoint an all-male Cabinet. As the Minister was happy to acknowledge, this Government have blocked European directives on part-time work and parental leave. Indeed, the Government find a reason to oppose any progressive European social legislation. They did that when I was a Member of the European Parliament. Of all the countries and parties represented on the Social Affairs and Employment Committee, the only party to block effective social legislation was the Conservative party.
The Government's latest act was to abolish wages councils which provided for the equalisation of pay rates for men and women. Nearly 2 million of Britain's lowest-paid women now have no effective remedy against unequal pay. The Trades Union Congress has made a formal complaint to the European Commission arguing that, by abolishing the wages councils, the United Kingdom Government are failing to comply with their legal obligations.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Of course we have abolished wages councils. However, will the hon. Lady confirm that wages councils had nothing to do with equal pay? Until the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, was it not the case that, under a Labour Government, wages councils set different rates of pay for men and women?

Mrs. Clwyd: The disparities have grown since the wages councils were abolished.
The Minister did not welcome a recent House of Lords judgment which gave part-time workers the same rights as full-time workers with respect to unfair dismissal and redundancy payments. Instead, he said that he was still taking legal advice. He did not even bother to say that tonight. The Minister's comments tonight seemed to convey the fact that it was never the Government's intention to implement legislation that the other place has said that this House must implement.
Clearly, the Government have no intention of moving on the protection of part-time workers. That is another


example of the Government's reluctance to support working women when 88 per cent. of part-time workers are women.
I was very interested in the Minister's comments on the draft directive on the burden of proof. The draft directive was first published in 1988 and, predictably, it was opposed by the United Kingdom Government. It was revised and amended by the Belgian presidency in July 1993. If the Minister is unaware of the evidence given to the Committee in 1988, I suggest that he examines it. The Law Society, the TUC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and others gave very detailed evidence and they all supported the directive.
The purpose of the draft directive is to enable alleged victims of sex discrimination to pursue their claims more easily and more speedily in the courts. It is not clear from the memorandum submitted by the Department whether the United Kingdom Government agree that that purpose is important and desirable. From what the Minister has said tonight, it is highly unlikely that the Government believe that such a purpose is important.
Government opposition to the original draft directive in 1988 put them at odds, as was said earlier, with the Law Society and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Both those bodies believe that the reforms in the draft directive were sensible and practical and would eliminate areas of doubt from complex legislation. The proposals would ensure greater consistency in application of discrimination legislation in industrial tribunals and, where appropriate, the county court.
As noted in the supplementary explanatory memorandum, the United Kingdom opposes the shifting of burden of proof in principle, and it is the only member state to do that.
Not surprisingly, I cannot find anywhere in the Government's written evidence any statement about the importance of eliminating discrimination in employment. Indeed, quite the contrary, from what the Minister said tonight. There is no mention—and the Minister has not acknowledged it anywhere—of the undisputed fact that sex discrimination remains prevalent in employment and in many other areas of British life.
It is brazen impudence for the Government to argue that the law is fair and accessible when both the TUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission have complained about its operation. The EOC has also called for a major overhaul of sex discrimination and equal pay laws in this country. It seems that everyone apart from the Government acknowledges that the laws are complicated and obscure.
In the Minister's written evidence, the United Kingdom also opposes the draft directive on the grounds of subsidiarity. We know from other debates that we have had with the Minister that the Government use subsidiarity as an argument when they do not like some European measure; then they say that we should decide the matter at home. In the area under discussion, the Government want to argue subsidiarity on the one hand, but on the other hand they are not prepared to do anything about the issue.
Since 1981, the EOC has been pressing for legislation to bring United Kingdom law into line with that of the European Union. Each time the Government adopt a minimalist response, and that is their idea of subsidiarity. If anyone is to take the argument of subsidiarity seriously, surely there must be common minimum standards on which European Union member states can build. What women in Europe need are easier and speedier ways to win

basic rights. The apparently technical draft directive is about making European equality law work in practice for women in all the member states.
The Government's motion argues that the draft directive would have a disproportionate effect on the United Kingdom. Yet as the EOC pointed out, broadly speaking, United Kingdom case law already provides for the shifting of the burden of proof. The directive therefore would for the most part establish that position.

Mr. Heald: In the most recent case, Camara, the employment appeals tribunal made it clear that the suggestion in earlier cases had been misunderstood and the burden of proof had not shifted. Does the hon. Lady disagree with that?

Mrs. Clwyd: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman read the rest of the judgment.
The main relevance of the directive to the United Kingdom would be its effect on sex discrimination proceedings. Everyone can quote cases and pick out lines, as we could from Enderby and others, which show that there are still some arguments on these points. It is to clarify the points that we are trying to persuade the Government to be progressive in their approach to the directive.

Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that study after study over the past 16 years has shown that women have failed to succeed at tribunals, partly because there is no legal aid? Also, it is impossible for women to prove discrimination if they have no access to records. That is also applied to race discrimination cases such as that of West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v. Singh—as we are all citing cases. In that case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no female precedent in that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: They are all precedents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for that remark from a sedentary position; at present, I am in the Chair.

Ms Corston: Time and again, it has been shown that women have failed to prove sex discrimination because they have no access to records. The only way in which that can be done is for the burden of proof to shift, and that is why it is so important for the directive to be enforced.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). She is a most eminent lawyer who has much experience in the matter, and we are all grateful for that intervention.
Interestingly enough, the Government conceded that point in the explanatory memorandum of 12 July 1988 relating to the earlier drafts of the directive. They said that the directive proposed in sex discrimination cases that the burden of proof should be shifted from the complainant to the respondent, once a rebuttal presumption of discrimination had been established. They added that case law in the United Kingdom provided for the burden of proof to be shifted in that way already.
It is therefore nonsense to suggest now that the draft would disproportionately affect the United Kingdom. The Government surely are making a mountain out of a molehill. The Opposition have, of course, always been


staunch supporters of the original draft. In particular, we supported the wider definition of indirect discrimination that it contained. Under current law, that is extremely difficult to prove, and the draft directive would make it easier for people to claim indirect discrimination, since it allows more general practices to be examined for discriminatory behaviour. That would have been a major advance in the fight for equal treatment in the workplace.
The original draft contained many other worthwhile proposals—far too many for the Government to countenance—but the Government's pressure to wreck a worthwhile European initiative eventually bore fruit. When the Belgian Government, who were seeking a compromise, brought the directive back to the table, it had been considerably watered down. That was mainly due to the efforts of the Government.
In addition, article 4 of the new draft was rewritten. It begins by stating that the respondent—that is, the employer—must prove that the principle of equality has not been violated. It goes on to say that member states may decide that the respondent complies with that point if he or she can prove that there are objective reasons not concerned with a person's sex which justify a difference in treatment.
That clause has apparently sprung from nowhere, and it may introduce so-called objective justification into cases of direct sex discrimination. An implication of that may be that employers will be able successfully to justify a refusal to take on a pregnant woman because of the costs of staff cover during maternity leave. That, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, would be a major departure from the current position in United Kingdom law, and that is one of several reasons why it does not support the draft directive in its present form.
Labour's position is entirely clear. Unlike the Government, we support the principle of reversing the burden of proof. That has been established in practice in the United Kingdom, and we support the extension of the principle, and of laws to support it, throughout Europe. Along with our allies in the European Parliament, we have consistently supported the extension of best practice for working men and women throughout the Union.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the letter in the Vote bundle on this issue from Lord Justice Slynn of Hadley—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Lord Slynn.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg your pardon. The letter refers to his belief that the measure would lead to
more protracted litigation rather than a higher ratio of success for applicants seeking to prove unlawful discrimination".
Is the hon. Lady aware that Lord Slynn is hardly a Euro-sceptic? He has served extensively in employment appeal tribunals, judged extensively in sex equality cases and served in the European Court, both as Advocate-General and as a justice.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me Lord Slynn's curriculum vitae. However, I prefer to take account of the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission's considerable and extensive experience of these matters. It has more experience than Lord Slynn, despite his extensive CV, which the hon. Gentleman read out. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Lady think that it is perhaps worth making the point that the Government have rejected the opinion expressed by the distinguished lawyer and judge Lord Slynn and have given reasons for rejecting the directive which are different from those given by Lord Slynn in his letter?

Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps he would explain the matter to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) as soon as he can.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the spirit of helping the hon. Lady, if we could leave Lord Slynn for the time being, may I ask her what she would say to the Court of Appeal, which has taken the view that changing the position on the burden of proof would not be helpful and is not necessary?

Mrs. Clwyd: I do not think that the Minister got the phraseology right. Would he like to phrase the question again?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I was simply making the point that not only Lord Slynn but the Court of Appeal has said that reversing the burden of proof would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Is the hon. Lady saying that we should take the views of the Equal Opportunities Commission before those of the Court of Appeal?

Mrs. Clwyd: Obviously, there are many opinions on the matter. I am not saying that anyone has the complete answer. We do not support the directive as it is currently drafted. We ask the Government to go back and rewrite it. If the Minister had read our amendment—he clearly has not—he would have seen what we were asking him to do. We are not calling for support for the directive. We want to see it rewritten. We want to bring back many of the positive features of the original version. We also want to see article 4 redrafted so that there is no prospect of objectively justified direct sex discrimination creeping into United Kingdom law.
If the Government claim that they are committed to the elimination of sex discrimination and oppose the draft directive on principle, which is what I understand the Minister to argue, as well as for technical reasons, what other steps are they planning to take—[Interruption.] I am addressing the question directly to the Minister and I hope that he will respond to it when he replies.
What steps do the Government plan to take to speed up and increase the success rates in sex discrimination and employment cases? If the Minister rejects the directive and wants to see it buried, what does he propose to put in its place to improve the current position?
As we all know, the Government have fought tooth and nail against any extension of Community competence in equal opportunities legislation. I have not seen any evidence that the Government want to make it easier and quicker for applicants to win sex discrimination cases. In fact, the opposite is the case.
The original draft directive was a modest attempt to improve the status and position of women in society. In opposing the amended directive, the Government once again are showing their complete lack of concern about the growing gap between the position of men and women in our society. Whatever progressive social legislation is proposed by the European Union to eliminate inequality, the Government are guaranteed to fight it tooth and nail. In


the coming European elections, as in last week's local elections, the electorate will once again kick the Government where it hurts.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I was not planning to speak until I saw this incredible amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about your notes?"]. They are all blank; I am making it up as I go along. The Opposition tabled this incredible amendment—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may scoff but I am trying to address my remarks directly to the motion.
I was starting to warm to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) during her final remarks because she rightly said that she wants something positive to happen to redress the balance between men's and women's earnings. I certainly agree. The question that we should ask is whether that balance can be redressed by legislation either in this House or in Europe. I contend that it cannot.
Before 1970—before we legislated—employers were starting to recognise that women were valuable members of the work force, and the differential between men's and women's earnings was becoming less. For one year after the Equal Pay Act 1970, the momentum carried that trend forward, but, in all but a couple of years since then, the differential has widened. Therefore, legislation has not been effective.
Hon. Members have mentioned the Law Society often enough this evening, saying that it wants us to legislate more. I am looking at the lawyers who are present in the House, because one finds that almost all those in lawyers' offices who are doing the really valuable work are women and they are on the lowest salaries paid in virtually any profession. All those legal secretaries who make all the money for the business and keep it going by doing the conveyancing get virtually no money.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: Very briefly. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I have insulted his sensibilities.

Mr. Hoon: On a straightforward political point, if the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, why did the Conservative Government not repeal the Equal Pay Act 1970 between 1970 and 1974? That Act was fully implemented in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Mr. Bruce: If I had been in the House, I certainly would have urged the Government to do precisely that. Hon. Members should learn that, if legislation that was put in place more than 20 years ago has completely failed, we should kick against it instead of trying to tinker with it in the ridiculous fashion that this European directive requires.
When I earned an honest living, as they say, carrying out work studies, as a work study manager—I cannot even remember my job title now—I was a good job evaluation person. One thing that we had to do was to demonstrate why job evaluation was a useful tool in a workplace. We had to make it clear to people, however, that there never has been and never will be a situation in which one can say that a job of work has a particular financial value.
Job evaluation was set up to ensure that, within a workplace, differentials could be justified in terms of the types of jobs people had to do. Clearly, if it is impossible to give work a specific value, it is also impossible for

anyone who does a job in a different company at a different rate of pay to prove that his or her work is equally valuable. When people take employers to the sex discrimination courts to try to prove that case, they find it impossible. They are trying to prove an impossibility.
There is no clear relationship between the value of what someone does and the amount that they are paid for it. I touched on the example of solicitors' offices. Hon. Members should consider where the money is earned and who does the conveyancing work, and the fact that the solicitors are paid a large amount of money because they have a particular qualification.
It is a value judgment to decide that someone who has had the privilege of going to college for six years and all the fun of student union rags and the rest of it should get extra reward for their work. Opposition Members may scoff at that, but I have an even better example to cite that is much closer to home. They should think twice about scoffing, especially when they read Hansard tomorrow, because my other example concerns the differential between the salaries of Opposition Members and their secretaries.
If one compares the work of Opposition Members with the productivity of every secretary in the House it becomes clear that there is absolutely no case for those hon. Members to earn more money than their secretaries and research assistants. They get all the perks and the money but, in terms of skill levels, qualifications and knowledge, their secretaries stand far higher: they do all the work, but they earn much less. Those Opposition Members would have the greatest difficult in proving that they are worth more money. They are paid more just because of custom and practice. There are also far more men than women doing their job.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Member started by arguing that comparisons are invalid and that no comparisons can be made between the equal value of one type of work and another, but he is now seeking to make such a comparison between hon. Members and their secretaries. Which way does he want it?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point. I was simply saying that one cannot make such value judgments. The marketplace and those in power make the decision. One of the few occasions on which the House can be assured of a good turnout from Labour Back Benchers on a one-line Whip is when they are called upon to vote through a pay rise. They are very good at justifying that. That is the way of the world and that is reality.
I am not kicking against reality; I am telling legislators that they cannot simply tell the House or the European Parliament or the Commission that they want to reverse the laws of reality. There is no point in their deciding that there is a strict relationship between the amount of money that someone is paid and the value of his work. The directive is seeking to change the burden of proof, which means that the impossible, which cannot be proved, will be proved by the employer. The employer will be unable to do that and the case will therefore fail.
The Government are totally justified in rejecting this ridiculous directive. If the European Parliament fights against our Government and the sensible measures that they put forward after the European elections, we will rue the day on which anyone voted for socialist or Liberal Democrat candidates to serve in that place.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It was interesting to see the cloak of sackcloth and ashes worn by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), as he talked about equal pay for equal value. The Register of Members' Interests reveals that he is the chairman of Ian Bruce Associates Ltd., parliamentary adviser to the Telecommunications Managers Association and parliamentary adviser to Trevor Gilbert and Associates, personal injury employment advisers, which is a division of Recruitment Network Ltd. The register also states that he has received a gift of satellite equipment, two fax machines from Southern Electricity plc and a mobile telephone from Talkland International, and that he has had the use of a Nissan Primera. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He also visited Elveden forest holiday village. And so it goes on.
What a disreputable performance we witnessed from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman would like to confirm that he does not take his full parliamentary salary, for which some of us voted, I should be happy to give way. Does he take that money or not?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just proved the point, because although my staff work much harder than I do, I can command more in the marketplace for doing certain things. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that any of my staff should simply be able to go to the European Parliament or wherever and prove that he should be paid that money instead of me, that is ridiculous.

Mr. Carlile: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's brain works like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
There are some important and serious arguments to be made. As I listened to the Minister's speech, I was reminded of the memorable occasion in the House on which Mr. Alan Clark spoke about the same subject. In his diary, Mr. Clark is frank about that occasion. He says, in effect, that on that evening he was playing the part of Bacchus after earlier bibulousness; his speech then was at least as coherent as that of the hon. Gentleman playing the part of ignoramus here tonight.
For example, the Minister sought to rely on the right hon. and noble Lord Slynn of Hadley. I have read Lord Slynn's letter. I have an immense admiration, as I think have most lawyers in the House, for the intellectual ability of Lord Slynn and his experience in the European Union. If Lord Slynn had objected to the directive on the same basis as did the Minister tonight, the Minister might have some credibility; but he has chosen to rely on two entirely different points. One related to subsidiarity, and has been adequately discussed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and the other related to the basis of the labour market.
The hon. Gentleman was eventually tempted by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to remember the case in the Court of Appeal of Camara. I would remind him that his hon. Friend was a little bit selective—I am sure more selective than he would be in court—in citing from the case of Camara. In court, one has to tell the judge not only the good things but the adverse points when making

one's submissions. I remind him especially of that part of the judgment in Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v. Camara, in which it was said:
Thereafter bearing in mind the burden of proof upon the applicant the Tribunal should apply their findings to each element necessary to establish the type of discrimination alleged, and finally decide whether the applicant has established direct or indirect discrimination or victimisation as the case may be.
If one analyses those words and the rest of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Camara, one realises that the Court of Appeal was doing its best to apply the same evidential standards without reversing the burden of proof in jurisprudential terms. If it were to reverse the burden of proof it would be overruled by the House of Lords, because that would be judicial law making, which is not permitted. By taking a very clever, intellectual approach, the Court of Appeal achieved almost exactly what is in the directive in any event.
It is plain that the Government do not understand what article 4 of the directive says. Indeed—I know that there is a great shortage of time tonight, so I shall make the argument as quickly as I can, but it is important—it seems clear that the Minister has never read article 4 of the directive, in its present or its previous form.
Paragraph 1 of former draft article 3 would have required persons who considered themselves wronged by failure to apply to them the principle of equality to establish before a court or other competent authority a presumption of discrimination. So immediately, before the burden of proof—if it be the right word—shifted, the complainant would have to establish that there had been discrimination. There is a clear burden of proof on the applicant.
Paragraph 2 of the same draft stated:
A presumption of discrimination is established where a complainant shows a fact or a series of facts which would, if not rebutted, amount to direct or indirect discrimination.
Those words could not have a plainer meaning. I say to the Minister that they and the subsequent version made it crystal clear that the applicant under the directive has to establish something that would amount to direct or indirect discrimination unless it is rebutted. What is the difference between that and what the Minister claims to be the alternative, which the Government seek to present to the House as the answer to the directive?
The Government do not understand the directive. They seek simply to find yet another stick with which to beat the European Union. At the beginning of the debate when the Minister was making his opening remarks, it was plain that most of the Conservative Members who had come in to listen to him belonged to the Prime Minister's illegitimate tendency. There were so many of them that the Minister looked like the old woman who lived in a shoe.
It is time that the Government showed a little intellectual honesty in European matters and recognised that the directive represents a fair statement of what should be the law in this country and the fact that it is close to our existing law.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I confess that when I heard the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) twitting my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about his interests, I chuckled because I thought of all the remunerated employment that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have as a silk. He must make a good few bob—


[Interruption.] I confess to being a lawyer. However, in addition to being a Queen's counsel, a recorder and a lay member of the General Medical Council, the hon. and learned Gentleman also has the loan of a word processor and software from Tandem computers, which is no doubt useful when considering briefs.
I was hoping to make three points in the debate. First, the burden of proof is an important principle. It is a right of the individual that should not be attacked except where it is essential in the interests of justice. The principle that he who asserts a right must prove it is vital. It is wrong for Opposition Members to say that, simply because it is difficult to prove a case in particular circumstances, we must change the whole basis of proof and how it is achieved.
The House of Lords Select Committee looked at the proposal and reached that conclusion. It said that, if we pursued that approach, more cases would be proved but at the risk of proving cases that should not be proved. It made the cogent point:
a Directive which clearly did reverse the legal burden of proof would undoubtedly assist complaints in this area. The Committee do not, however, believe that such a change would he right in principle … It is not obvious that there is any unique justification for making a change as sweeping as reversing the basic rule on burden of proof in favour of victims of sex discrimination".
Once that barrier is breached, where does the matter end? A case that is difficult to prove can always be found, but, if the burden of proof were reversed in every such case, an extremely dangerous principle would be established.

Mr. Hoon: Does the hon. Gentleman see a difference between equal pay cases and product liability cases where the burden of proof is reversed?

Mr. Heald: Yes, I certainly see a distinction. We could have an interesting legal argument about that.

Mr. Hoon: What is it, then?

Mr. Heald: I have only a short time in which to speak. Given our years of debating law together, the hon. Gentleman will accept that we could discuss that area of law for many a happy hour.
Secondly, if there are objective reasons and one can point to, for example, a difference in pay, I accept that the burden should be reversed—and it is. But in a case where such direct evidence does not exist, the balance struck in the case of Chattopadhyay and later cases is right: that if one person has better qualifications than another but that person has not been appointed, an inference should be drawn. But the burden of proof should not be changed because it is an important protection for the individual.
In the Chattopadhyay case, the court made it clear that the inference should be drawn only in circumstances that were consistent with the treatment's being based on racial grounds. In later cases—in particular, the case of Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v. Camara, of which we have already heard a good deal—the courts made it clear that
the guidelines in earlier cases permitting inferences to be drawn in favour of an applicant were not to be taken to mean that the burden of proof itself shifted.
That principle was still clearly enshrined in the words read out by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery: the burden of proof, which is important in English law, should not be interfered with in such a way. The fad that an inference can be drawn is a way of providing proof, but that is not the same as changing the burden of proof.
The Commission has not taken adequate account of the procedural safeguards in English law. There is a statutory questions procedure, whereby—if inferences are not to be drawn—an employer can be forced to answer a range of sweeping questions relating to the way in which he has dealt with the choice between two applicants. Documents can be required, and the employer can be forced to give them up if that can be justified. Those protections, together with the burden of proof, are important in protecting the interests of the employer, while also ensuring that the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of succeeding in a case of this sort.
I believe that the burden of proof should be protected. I think it right, in clear cases, to shift the burden as we do; but, given the protections that already exist in English law, I do not consider that we would be right to introduce the directive. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) criticised Conservative Members, saying that we argued for subsidiarity because it would allow us to decide at home what should happen. I believe that: I believe that we should fight hard for subsidiarity. It is right for us to decide many such issues at home. One reason is that, over a thousand years, we have developed one of the best legal systems in the world—and I do not want it to be bastardised by the European Community or anyone else.

Mr. John Hutton: Earlier, we were entertained—his speech was certainly entertaining—by the Minister of State. He made what most of us would describe as a rather raucous speech and a convincing case for being reshuffled into the Foreign Office, where he could display some of his more diplomatic skills in describing our European Union partners. At various points, he described this modest set of proposals as ridiculous and absurd, but anyone examining the details of the directive would reach a different conclusion.
Many of us were left with the impression that the Minister was not actually talking about the directive. He showed contempt for our European partners who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said, support the proposals. His comments about competitiveness were complete gibberish. There is no suggestion that the directive will add any new legal obligations for employers. It is simply an attempt to clarify the emerging European jurisprudence on where the burden of proof lies in cases of discrimination.
The Government's rather flimsy compliance cost assessment, contained in the bundle of documents that they have provided, is also ludicrous. The measure will increase employers' obligations by a minute fraction. As the Government have effectively conceded, it is almost impossible to put a financial measure on any extra costs that British employers will face, and the attempt to do so strikes me as absurd.
The Government's objections to the draft directive have more to do with their current problems over Europe than with the issues raised by this modest set of proposals. The debate is all about their resistance to positive measures to improve the employment protection rights of British workers. That resistance will be shown to have been a mistake. The debate is also largely about appeasing the growing number of Eurosceptics on the Government Back Benches.
There has been some reference to case law tonight and to the burden of proof in discrimination cases, but no one has looked in great detail at the Enderby v. Frenchay health authority case. The European Court of Justice, which is the ultimate authority in such matters—not the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, although the Minister may not like that—has already made the position transparent in respect of that case.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Equal Pay and Equal Treatment (Burden of Proof) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Hutton: As I was saying, in the Enderby case the European Court made it transparently clear that under the provisions of article 119 and the supporting directives there has already been a shift in the burden of proof. Paragraph 18 of the European Court judgment, which was about a case involving equal pay, reads as follows:
Workers would be unable to enforce the principle of equal pay before national courts if evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination did not shift to the employer the onus of showing that the pay differential is not in fact discriminatory".
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and others have tried to quote other authorities, but the European Court is the overriding authority, and I have quoted the governing principle that applies to cases in which the onus of proof is the subject of dispute.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a point that the Minister did not seem to understand—these are not cases that will land employers with impossible burdens. They will not have to fight cases with both hands tied behind their backs, because applicants will have to make out a prima facie case of discrimination before there can be any argument about the onus of proof moving to the respondent. The Minister cited the case of a man and a woman with equal qualifications, but the woman did not get the job. There, it would still be open to the employer to present the argument that the Minister predicted—that the woman was not appointed because she was not the right candidate for the job.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity, and time is limited.
The argument about subsidiarity must also be exposed for what it is. The Government are using it to reject and defeat an idea to which they are fundamentally and ideologically opposed.
The Minister also tried to argue that there is no evidence to warrant the changes to the directive. In the research done in 1984 by Jennifer Corcoran and Elaine Donnelly, the problems in many European jurisdictions were clearly shown up. Many applicants face a problem trying to present their cases successfully to an industrial tribunal, and that problem is what the directive attempts to solve.
The Minister rather laboured the point that there is a fundamental objection in the British legal system to anything that reverses the onus of proof and places it on the respondent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield

(Mr. Hoon) has said, we have already done that in a number of other sectors. The burden of proof in taxation law has been moved around. For the product liability directive in 1985, the Government accepted a change in the onus of proof—it was moved to the respondent. So that, too, is a bogus argument. There is no principled objection to the change. If there were, it would have emerged in earlier cases, when the Government did not object to a shift in the burden of proof.
It all comes down to the basic proposition that the Government oppose the draft directive because it would do something positive to advance the employment protection rights of British workers, especially workers who have faced sexual discrimination. The Government's arguments amount to superfluous waffle. They simply oppose the directive because, in its modest way—many of us would say, its limited way—it represents an attempt to improve the employment rights of British women.
I hope that the House will have the common sense and the good judgment to tell the Government that we have had enough of their Eurosclerosis and scepticism. A logical and reasonable case can be made in support of the directive. I hope that the House will take that view.

Mr. Eric Illsley: In the few remaining minutes of the debate, I want to elaborate on a point that I made earlier about an equal pay case that has dragged on for many years.
A number of women have been unable to plead their case successfully under the legal system, despite the fact that they have been aided by the National Union of Mineworkers, which provided funds so that the women could pursue their case and have legal representation.
As long ago as 1978, two canteen workers at Hem Heath colliery in Staffordshire applied successfully to an industrial tribunal for pay equal to a male working in a surface establishment. The NUM negotiated with British Coal in an attempt to ensure that that principle was applied throughout the industry. British Coal refused and said that each case would have to be proved and considered on its own. That led to a number of equal pay claims on behalf of women employees of British Coal, which unfortunately proved unsuccessful.
The NUM then pursued a case under equal value legislation. In 1983, it made some 1,500 claims to British Coal to secure equal pay for work of equal value on behalf of canteen workers. That claim was successful. An industrial tribunal found in favour of the canteen workers who were supported by the NUM. British Coal appealed, but the canteen ladies' case was upheld and British Coal's arguments were again rejected.
It is interesting to note the differential between the canteen workers' wages and comparable wages of male surface workers. It amounted to about 80 per cent. There was also a differential in concessionary fuel receipts, which were originally the basis of the claim. The preliminary hearing of the industrial tribunal found in favour of the canteen workers and the NUM was again successful at the employment appeals tribunal, yet, many years after the original claims in the early 1980s, British Coal wants to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
The union incurred considerable costs in pursuing those cases at the industrial tribunal and at the employment appeal tribunal. Despite the fact that British Coal has


already lost two cases, it is pursuing the case at the Court of Appeal, and if it loses that case, it threatens to take it to the House of Lords.
It is obvious that British Coal has lost the argument and that it opposes the case because, as a company, it has more resources available to it than the NUM. That is a result of a fault in the legislation. British Coal's deliberations and filibustering, for want of a better word, have resulted in the union spending much money on the case. The membership of the union has, sadly, declined because of Government policy and it now faces difficulties in pursuing the case to the Court of Appeal and then the House of Lords, despite the fact that it has been successful on two occasitons.
Our legislation is not good enough and in the absence of Government legislation the directive is the only measure that is available. Perhaps we should consider it to make our legislation more effective. Where a proper and valid claim has been found successful by the employment appeals tribunal, there should be a measure to allow it to go forward.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: This interesting debate has shown the differences between the Opposition and the Government on Europe. Were it not for the social chapter opt-out which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated and which Opposition Members opposed, the House would not be discussing the measure at all because it would have been decided by other member states under qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) nods with enthusiasm because, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) confirmed in her speech, Opposition Members see Europe as a way of bringing in socialism by the back door and of achieving what they cannot achieve in the House because they cannot secure a mandate for it.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was hoist by his own high technology. He accused me of not having read the directive but quoted from a version that has long since been superseded. It appears from a study of the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a computer. It is high time that he had a look at his database and revised his views.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that the Equal Opportunities Commission was concerned about the impact of wages councils on women's pay. As I pointed out, she neglected to mention that wages councils used to set different rates of pay for men and women. There was no mention of that under a Labour Government. Why was it that we had no trouble in Europe and no trouble from the Equal Opportunities Commission on the role of the wages councils when the Labour Government abolished 11 of them?
The measure is unnecessary. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, every employer who refused to give a job to a woman with the same qualifications as a male applicant, even though the employer had chosen the man because he thought that he was the best person for the job, would be put in the dock and asked to prove that he had not discriminated against the woman. If that is what the Labour party wants to happen, I hope that people will know about it. [Interruption.] We do not want any interventions from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We all know his view on positive discrimination from the

shadow Cabinet elections. If his colleagues are to be believed it was not exactly progressive. We know all about his efforts to support his leadership on that matter.
We do not need the directive to decide matters. The House can put in place systems to deal with sex discrimination. The level at which our system has placed women in work is better than that which other member states have been able to achieve. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, under our system women's pay has grown and under this Government the pay differential with men has been reduced.

Mrs. Clwyd: That is not true.

Mr. Forsyth: It is true. Since 1979 the differential has been reduced by 4 per cent. and the hon. Lady should know that.
The most fundamental objection to the directive is that it is part of a package of measures that simply misses the point about the principles that are important in the Community. If we want to give women more opportunities and create more jobs we do not need more regulations that will add to the cost of employment and make it more difficult to employ people. Opposition Members would accept the social chapter and give away our veto, leaving our country less able to compete.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been travelling throughout the country making a lot of noise and the Leader of the Opposition has been busily telling the country that Labour are committed to maintaining Britain's veto and would not get rid of it. Tonight, we have an example of a measure that Britain is vetoing. We are able to veto it because we opted out of the social chapter. If we were in it, we could not veto the directive. Opposition Members would have removed that veto.
Labour Members do not need the veto because they believe in a socialist agenda that would make it more difficult to create the jobs that are desperately needed throughout the Community. As my hon. Friends pointed out, it is no coincidence that half the inward investment in the Community comes to Britain. That is happening because we are able to reject the kind of nonsense that we have heard tonight.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to the Order [29 April.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 285.

Division No. 232]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Austin-Walker, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)






Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hutton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Illsley, Eric


Cann, Jamie
Ingram, Adam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jamieson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Coffey, Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Keen, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corston, Ms Jean
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Enright, Derek
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliot


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Garrett, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gerrard, Neil
Mudie, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mullin, Chris


Godsiff, Roger
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, William


Grocott, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gunnell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hall, Mike
Patchett, Terry


Hanson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L.


Harvey, Nick
Pope, Greg


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Kate
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoon, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan





Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Fry, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Churchill, Mr
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gorst, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)






Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spink, Dr Robert


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spring, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tracey, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tredinnick, David


Mates, Michael
Trend, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walden, George


Moate, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen





Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Derek Conway.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6703/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Employment Department on 21st October 1993, relating to the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for women and men; endorses the Government's view that the draft Directive breaches the principle of subsidiarity and would have a disproportionate impact in the United Kingdom; shares the Government's view that the proposed Directive is wrong in principle and unnecessary for the proper determination of cases; agrees with the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties, and take proper account of the problems of evidence and the need to reach fair decisions with due regard to the interests of both parties; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should not be adopted.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Minister for Energy and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), relating to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 3 May about a report published today, "Competition and choice in the gas market—a joint consultative document". A similar question was tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth three days later. The Minister answered that question today, held a press conference outside the House and notified me of his answer to the hon. Gentleman, despite the question that I had tabled previously. That is a gross discourtesy to the House.
The document, which is effectively a Green Paper and which has been the subject of parliamentary questions, should have been the subject of a statement in the House. It is an insult to more than 18 million gas users in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman may think that, but it is not a matter for the Chair, as he well knows.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you recall the occasion when a press release was put out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about a speech which he never made in the House of Commons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Undoubtedly you will have heard earlier today that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People misled the House on Friday when he said that he had no knowledge about parliamentary questions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Madam Speaker told the House that she will consider the matter.

Orders of the Day — Water Pollution (Worcester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Peter Luff: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to the people of Worcestershire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has approached the issue and for being here tonight to respond to this short debate.
On Friday 15 April, a serious water pollution incident occurred in my constituency, which also affected the water in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and caused supply difficulties in Gloucestershire and as far away as Coventry. It was a major incident by any standards, but not a dangerous one, as eventually became clear by great good fortune.
My purpose tonight is to explain what happened, to ask about the questions that the various inquiries which have been established must address and to ask the Government to do three things urgently. When the reports of the inquiries are available, that will be the time to apportion blame, if any, and to ensure that the lessons of this incident are properly learned.
The issues which I will raise tonight, and have done repeatedly since the incident, should not mask my general admiration for the way in which all the bodies and agencies involved have responded, both to the events themselves and to the public debate since. They have been models of openness, which I have found encouraging.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friends whose constituents were affected for their invaluable assistance, and, perhaps unusually, to the two members of the Government Whips Office who experienced similar problems in the past—my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)—for their advice.
It is generally not my intention to point the finger of blame tonight. Some Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) in his place—have been quick to do so. I think they were wrong. Is it just a coincidence that their early-day motion singles out for criticism by name two public servants from the Government-controlled district health authority—two individuals of great personal integrity and professional skill—but does not mention the involvement of a Labour-controlled city council or a Liberal and Labour-controlled county council in the same emergency incident team?
Opposition Members have named names in an irresponsible way, and have risked politicising an important issue. Finding the right responses to the issue will be more difficult in a party political climate. Their attitude contrasts with the highly responsible attitude of the three local authorities in my constituency, each of a different political composition, towards the incident.
Let us turn to the events themselves. Customer complaints began it all at about 8 am on Friday 15 April. They were related to water from the Barbourne treatment works in the centre of Worcester. The reports were of a strong paraffin-type smell and taste to the water coming out of their taps.
The works was shut down within 80 minutes—by any standards, a fast response. The decision to issue the formal warning not to drink water, though, was only made around midday on Friday. Information was provided on local radio, from a police helicopter, loudspeaker vans and letter drops. Bowsers containing emergency supplies began to arrive quickly.
An estimated 126,000 people were affected by the incident, plus thousands of others who were asked to save water as far away as Coventry. Indeed, water was actually cut off in many homes in the midlands.
South Staffordshire Water, upstream of Worcester, suffered a polluted reservoir, but by a miracle that company was not abstracting water for immediate consumption from the River Severn at the time, or the scale of the emergency would have been far greater, as much of the Black Country could have been directly affected.
The source of the pollution was tracked around 1 am on Saturday by the National Rivers Authority, to an industrial plant at Wem in Shropshire. The water was declared safe by 5 pm on Saturday, but the problems of taste, particularly in the more remote areas, continued well after that.
We must learn the lessons, not just for Worcestershire, but for everywhere where water is abstracted from rivers. There is no room for complacency. The worst did not happen, but tens of thousands of people were inconvenienced and alarmed—particularly the elderly, the disabled and those expecting babies, who are naturally very concerned about any possible long-term effects. We owe it to all these people to provide the maximum level of reassurance that those events will not happen again and that there is no long-term health hazard resulting from the pollution.
What, then, are the crucial questions to which public answers—and I stress public—must be given? I will start upstream, at the source of the pollution itself.
The source of the pollution was Vitalscheme Limited, a recycler of industrial solvents, licensed by Shropshire county council waste regulatory authority. It was only licensed on 28 February 1994. Within six weeks, its activities had gone wrong, and pollutants were being discharged.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that Severn Trent is taking criminal proceedings against Vitalscheme Ltd for the way in which substances have been introduced into Severn Trent sewers? Does he agree that there is now a powerful argument for companies such as Severn Trent to have a much greater input into the licensing of waste companies?

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am delighted that Severn Trent has decided to take proceedings against the firm in question, but that limits what we can say tonight on the subject, as the proceedings are sub judice.
Something went wrong, and material was discharged into the river without authorisation, which led to the problems in my constituency. There have been press reports about the nature of the firm which it would be improper to go into in detail tonight. Of course, the company is the subject of those proceedings.
If those reports are accurate, questions have to be asked about the licensing regime, whether there was negligence, and whether access to the right information or whatever would have made it easier for Shropshire county council to


deal with the matter. The system itself may be at fault. I understand that changes under an Act of Parliament introduced on 1 May may have dealt with the deficiency in the system which led to the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to deal with those points.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that recycling is a hazardous and skilled business, and that there is room only for the best possible operators in the trade. On the face of it, on this occasion something went badly wrong. To my mind, the answers to those questions are the most important answers to be gleaned. Only by getting the issue right can we be sure that similar pollution incidents will be avoided in the future.
The polluted water passed through the Severn Trent sewerage works, apparently for several days. Unwittingly, Severn Trent became the polluter of the Severn. It must have been for several days, because the polluted water had to travel 70 miles to Worcester before it was detected. I know that sewage works are smelly places, but the National Rivers Authority will have to examine that issue carefully in its investigation.
Talking of the National Rivers Authority leads me to the question of the river itself. How could the National Rivers Authority fail to spot pollution that must have been there for several days? As I say, there are 70 miles of river between Wem and Worcester. Perhaps more seriously, why was the NRA not part of the emergency incident team formed to deal with incident? Did its exclusion from the team delay the analysis and finding of solutions?
What of the Barbourne water treatment works in my constituency? The works is old, and is scheduled for replacement by enlarged works at Strensham at the end of 1995. They have served Worcester well, and the procedures there are thorough, but the fact remains that the noses of my constituents—the customers of Severn Trent—proved better at detecting the pollution than the formal monitoring that was in place there. How could this be?
I have read accounts of a similar incident in Philadelphia in the United States of America, involving the same chemical, which clearly illustrates the difficulties and properties of the particular pollutant involved. It is strange that my constituents' tastebuds were better than all the procedures in place at that treatment works. The puzzle must be satisfactorily resolved. Whatever the answer, I believe that only the superior filtration systems available at more modern plants can provide complete reassurance that the events will not be repeated.
What of Severn Trent's response to consumer complaints? Within 80 minutes of the first calls, the plant was shut. But it subsequently took three and a half hours to issue the warning not to drink the water. We have to ask whether that is genuinely the best that could have been achieved. If a major toxin had been to blame, that delay could have been fatal.
The water smelt strongly of paraffin, yet could not be analysed quickly. Why? Indeed, it took 14 days to work out the identity of the last pollutant—the smelly one. This question was asked in the Philadelphia experience, too, where the analysis took 20 days, but our inquiries must look into the apparent delay. Are the analytical facilities available for such incidents good enough? Do we need to provide more resources to the NRA and make it the central facility for events of this kind?
On the question of the health effects of the pollution, it is important to quote at some length from a report prepared for me by the department of public health medicine of the

Worcester and District health authority. It confirms a conversation that I had with Professor Rod Griffiths of the regional health authority, himself an expert in this area. The report says:
By Saturday afternoon 16th April we knew that Severn Trent had looked for but not found any of the major groups of toxic chemicals including polyaromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides. In addition, "Trihalomethanes" (formed when chlorine reacts with any organic material present in water after treatment and used as an indicator of the possible presence of toxic organic chemicals) were reported to be normal. We also knew that whatever chemicals were present were at concentrations of one part per billion or less. 2-ethyl 4-methyl 1,3-dioxolane had been positively identified at maximum concentrations of 0.02 parts per billion in tap water and was known to be volatile and smelly. The other chemical identified, in maximum concentrations of less than 1 part per billion, was reported to be an amine compound.
Advice was received through Professor Rod Griffiths on the basis of this information from the National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham) and the Health Advisory Group on Chemical Contamination Incidents (HAGCCI) that under these circumstances the chemicals did not pose a hazard to human health and that no other known chemicals as yet unidentified which could also be contaminating the water in trace amounts would be toxic at these concentrations.
The decision, taken jointly by a representative of the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health, the Advisors at the Regional Health Authority and by the Emergency Incident Teams in Worcester and Gloucester, was that there was no significant risk to health from drinking contaminated water and this advice was issued to the public.
I agree that questions need to be asked about where the samples that were analysed were taken and when. I accept that the conclusions arrived at by so many experts at the time must now be independently validated. On the basis of the evidence available to me, however, I am confident that the advice to the public was prudently and thoughtfully given, and that no blame attaches to any member of the emergency incident team for giving such advice. That evidence clearly contradicts the claims of the early-day motion to which I referred earlier.
What about the effectiveness and timeliness of warnings? I was living in Worcester, but I did not hear about the incident until about 2 pm on Friday, and then essentially by chance. No letters were received in my road until about 7 pm. The delay in giving the warning not to drink the water is an issue, but how could we have achieved something approaching 100 per cent. awareness among the population more rapidly, once that decision was taken?
There was considerable confusion of message. For example, acting on the same advice from Severn Trent on Saturday morning the two local radio stations offered different advice on the simple question of whether one could brush one's teeth. The letter that came through our door at home at 7 pm contrasted sharply with the reassuring tone of a Severn Trent spokesman on the television news a little earlier.
There was also confusion about the areas affected, although Severn Trent denies that. The lists issued of places affected were confusing, and the names offered seemed to change from list to list.
I appreciate the difficulties caused by the particular circumstances of the event. For example, the need for water conservation in other areas made the message more complicated. I do not believe that that aspect of the crisis was satisfactorily handled, however.
As for the provision of safe water, I have particular concerns about the experience of the rural areas. Perhaps those areas could also have done with better warnings.
Perhaps the parish council network could have been better used. Could more loudspeaker vans have been deployed in rural areas?
Bowsers were provided quickly in Worcester, but in many rural areas in the vale of Evesham it simply took too long. Some bowsers in Worcester city were vandalised and even stolen, which may also raise questions about the design of the bowsers for future incidents.
I am delighted by Severn Trent's response to demands for compensation. We all now have our cheques for £25. That is a generous and prompt response for domestic consumers, but what about businesses? There may be no strict liability on Severn Trent, but many restaurants and hotels in my constituency experienced very real losses.
What inquiries are being conducted? There are at least five: by Severn Trent, the drinking water inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, the Worcester and District health authority and the West Midlands regional health authority.
I expect that Shropshire county council, Ofwat, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and others are also taking a very close look at the issues raised by the events.
There is a desperate need for co-ordination. Will all the right questions be asked? Will there be wasteful and confusing overlap? Perhaps a full public inquiry is the only way to deal with those concerns properly. I will be listening to the Minister with particular care on that point.
The fundamental question revolves around the filtration system. The system used at the current Strensham plant would have prevented pollutants reaching the water supply. We must bring forward commissioning of the enlarged plant and the associated water main to Worcester and closure of the Barbourne treatment works.
It is only Severn Trent's massive investment programme—already well under way before the incident—that makes that possible. Worcester city and Wychavon district councils and the district health authority are all clear that that is the single most effective way to restore the confidence of the people of Worcestershire in their water supply. It is also the only way to ensure that the incident cannot be repeated.
I have read accounts of four similar incidents in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The experience of this latest incident shows that many lessons have clearly been learnt. We have separated the provider of water from the regulator—a direct result of privatisation. We have recognised the need to speed up public notification, which has been dramatically improved, despite my lingering concerns.
The media have become more prepared to play their part—I particularly congratulate my two local radio stations, BBC Hereford and Worcester and Radio Wyvern on their excellent service during the weekend in question. The water company has been much more open than other companies were in the past. Finally, the necessary investment in water is being made.
What do the Government need to do? First, they must do all in their power to stop similar pollution ever occurring again. If history does repeat itself, they must do all that they can to ensure that all drinking water would still be safe to drink. That means two things. The top priority

must be a thorough review of the licensing regime for industrial processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr.Pawsey) suggested. That regime enabled Vitalscheme Ltd. to pollute so much water only six weeks after getting its licence.
It is particularly important to establish whether the test of an individual being "fit and proper" is properly defined in legislation and in guidance from the Department of the Environment. It is also essential that the maximum pressure is put on Severn Trent to bring forward commissioning of the expanded Strensham works and the water main to Worcester.
Secondly, as I have already said, we must ensure that each and every lesson from this incident is learned. I am encouraged by the openness and determination of Ministers and all the agencies involved, but can we not co-ordinate their work more effectively? Failure to draw the right conclusions because of confusion between the inquiries would be unforgivable, and could have serious implications for any similar future incident.
I am not one of those who believe that all risk can be eradicated from human life simply by spending enough money—generally, enough of someone else's money, that is. Risk is an integral part of the human condition. On the basis of what I know so far, however, I am clear that my constituents have been exposed to very serious and genuinely avoidable risk. That is why I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to be conscientious and diligent in pursuing this matter. Such events must not be allowed to happen again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on bringing this matter before the House and on the way in which he reacted throughout to an incident that caused understandable concern to many of his constituents. I also commend the thoughtful way in which my parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who are present tonight, approached the matter throughout.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has raised a number of issues, and I hope that I can cover most of them fully in the time available. If not, I shall write to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members present who are concerned about the issue.
On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority are carrying out investigations into this incident. I understand also that the Worcester and District health authority is also carrying out investigations. They are all, of course, liaising with each other. I appreciate that there may be concerns that a number of investigations are involved, but as I am sure will be appreciated, these are separate bodies looking at different aspects of the incident. As my hon. Friend has said, I am sure that they will want to try to achieve the maximum possible co-ordination of their work.
Both the Secretary of State and the NRA are now considering whether prosecutions should be brought against some of those involved in the contamination of the river or in supplying contaminated drinking water. The


House will understand that I can say nothing that could prejudice either those decisions or any subsequent court proceedings. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made clear, Severn Trent Water has announced that it is to commence criminal proceedings against Vitalscheme Ltd. and its director. I will, however, try to respond as fully as I can to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.
I think that there is little disagreement as to the sequence of events. My hon. Friend has mentioned many of the facts, so I will not take up the House's time by repeating what he said. It may be helpful if, for completeness, I made the following points.
Severn Trent Water reported the incident to the drinking water inspectorate at 10.30 am on Friday, 15 April. The inspectorate monitored developments closely throughout that day and over the weekend. On Monday 18 April, the inspectorate sent two inspectors to the affected area to begin a thorough investigation.
On the afternoon of 15 April, Severn Trent detected odour in water being taken from the River Severn, and additionally shut down its Strensham water treatment works and Mythe waterworks. Mythe water treatment works supplies consumers in the Gloucester area, and Strensham supplies consumers in the Coventry area. Supplies were maintained to those areas from other sources, although appeals were made to conserve water.
At just after midnight on Saturday 16 April, the NRA had traced the source of the substance causing the contamination first to a sewage treatment plant operated by Severn Trent Water at Wem some 135 km above Barbourne. It is thought that the substance came to the sewage treatment plant from a waste disposal company in Wem called Vitalscheme Ltd., connected by sewer to the sewage treatment plant.
The NRA took formal samples from the Wem sewage treatment works and from Vitalscheme Ltd., the company on the Wem industrial park from where the discharge into the sewerage system was believed to have come. The circumstances in which the substance reached the sewer and went into the river from the sewage treatment plant are among those matters which may, I suspect, come before the courts.
By the morning of 16 April, knowledge of the character and concentration of the contaminants enabled a decision to be taken to re-start the Mythe works. Customers in Gloucester were advised to boil water before drinking it to minimise taste problems. The Strensham works was brought back into use on Monday 18 April, and supplies substantially restored to normal by Monday 25 April.
As I have said, it is thought that the source of the contamination was Vitalscheme Ltd., a waste disposal company in Wem. Vitalscheme was granted a waste disposal licence under Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 by Shropshire county council. That Act, and regulations made under it, prescribe the procedures to be followed in granting such licences. The aim of these procedures is to ensure the prevention of pollution of water or damage to human health. An authority may attach what conditions it thinks fit to the licence to secure that.
The licence granted to the company was for a waste transfer station and related only to the handling and storage of water solvent mixtures. It did not and does not relate to the disposal of waste to the sewer or elsewhere. Approval

of disposal to the sewer would largely be a matter for that part of Severn Trent Water that deals with the sewerage system.
It is the duty of the water supply companies in England to supply water that is fit to drink. They must also meet the requirements of the water quality regulations relating to drinking water quality, and other matters, such as sampling frequencies and methods of analysis. They are also required by law to report to the drinking water inspectorate incidents where drinking water quality is affected or which, among other things, could give rise to public alarm. Water companies must also have in place arrangements to deal with incidents.
Water companies in England and Wales are not left to their own devices in those matters. The drinking water inspectorate inspects the companies to ensure that they meet their legal obligations on drinking water quality. It publishes an annual report on its findings. The inspectorate also investigates incidents where drinking water quality is affected or threatened.
The inspectorate is inquiring into the effects of that incident on drinking water quality and is considering all aspects of the actions that Severn Trent Water took to deal with it, including advice given to consumers and matters relating to sampling and analysis. The inspectorate will also advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on whether Severn Trent Water should be prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption. The inspectorate's report will be published, although that may be delayed if a prosecution is pursued.
My hon. Friend asked about treatment at the waterworks and why the substances were not removed by it. At this stage, I am reluctant to go into detail about that. That is one of the matters that are, rightly, under investigation by the drinking water inspectorate. It is studying the adequacy of the facilities and treatment processes at the works affected.
Identifying unknown chemicals present in minute quantities in water is complicated and perforce time-consuming, especially when one has no precise idea what chemicals one is seeking. It involves matching "signatures" with those known and recorded in existing databanks. There are perhaps more than 100,000 such chemicals. The drinking water inspectorate is checking the validity and performance of the methods used during the incident.
My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the time it took to notify consumers of problems with their drinking water. The works at Barbourne was closed at 9.40 am on Friday 15 April, and local media releases were made at 12.25 pm. It takes time to mobilise the authorities and media to contact the large number of consumers involved.
It is of course important that any information given out is accurate and not alarmist. Here again, the drinking water inspectorate is investigating the speed of response of all people involved—of course, if my hon. Friend or any of those people involved have suggestions about the way in which the problem can be further improved, I should be very interested to consider such ideas.
It is important to recognise that, if a water system becomes unpressurised, there is some risk of the water becoming contaminated from the ground. This is a major consideration when considering whether or not to resume piped supplies.
The NRA has an important role in safeguarding river quality, but it is important to appreciate the extent of its


responsibilities in fulfilling this role. Anyone who proposes to discharge trade or sewage effluent into a watercourse—including, but by no means restricted to, rivers—needs a consent to do so. If a discharge does not have a consent, or does not comply with the consent, then quite simply, a criminal offence is committed and the discharger is liable to prosecution and if convicted punishment.
Considering applications for discharge consents, and setting and enforcing consent standards appropriate to protecting river quality, is one of the NRA's main functions. However, the NRA as a regulator is not responsible for discharges made by third parties into rivers, whether authorised or not. It is the discharger's responsibility to ensure that his effluent meets the terms of the consent. The NRA carries out regular monitoring of significant discharges to ensure that that is the case, but it is not feasible for the NRA to require or carry out continuous monitoring of every discharge from every source.
Inevitably, the NRA depends to a significant extent on dischargers, water users and members of the public to report incidents where it is suspected that water quality may have been affected by pollution. Such reports are carefully investigated without delay by "on-the-spot" pollution control officers. They then take whatever action is practicable to keep polluting matter from the river, keep it from spreading downstream, or neutralise its effects.
The NRA collects evidence with a view to possible prosecution of the polluter, as its policy is to prosecute in all serious cases. Moreover, the NRA also has the power to recover from the polluter the costs of responding to an incident.
I understand that, once the NRA received reports from Severn Trent Water of possible problems at the Barbourne abstraction, an urgent investigation was mounted into the possible source. The NRA faced the difficulty that there was no on-site visual, chemical or biological evidence of pollution in the river, but merely a slight and barely detectable smell. Portable instruments were simply not capable of detecting the pollution.
As such, working back up the river to locate the source was not a quick or easy task. Those concerned had to monitor and sample approximately 135 km of the River Severn and its tributaries, together with discharge points

and other areas of potential risk, before identifying Severn Trent Water's sewage treatment works at Wem, Shropshire, as the source.
The NRA's further response to the incident included, in liaison with Severn Trent Water, releases of water from two river regulation reservoirs in Wales to help dilute the already low concentrations of pollutant in the river and wash them downstream.
The NRA is carrying out an internal inquiry to assess the effectiveness of its response and see whether useful lessons might be learned. The inquiry is being carried out by Grainger Davies, regional general manager of the NRA's Anglian region. He has been asked to report as soon as possible. The NRA's findings will be made publicly available when the investigations are complete, although care may have to be taken to do nothing that might prejudice any prosecutions in respect of the incident, in which case the report would be made public immediately after the conclusion of any such prosecution.
Severn Trent Water has commissioned its own review, which will be under the chairmanship of Professor Kenneth Ives, emeritus professor at the department of civil and environmental engineering at University college, London. Professor Ives has added two other experts to his team: Dr. Ronald Packham, a specialist in drinking water; and Professor Desmond Hammerton, director of the Clyde river purification board.
Clearly, all the organisations concerned are taking the incident seriously. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester about the follow-up which the health authorities are taking. Suffice it to say that the Worcester and District health authority has sent questionnaires to people who are worried that the water may have made them ill and who contacted the helpline. I hope that those who receive a questionnaire will return it. Longer-term studies are planned by the West Midlands regional health authority, because it is determined that there should be the fullest investigation of possible longer-term health implications.
It is clear from the action that has been taken and is being taken that we take seriously any incident that affects the safety of drinking water, and that the most rigorous investigations are being carried out into all aspects of this incident—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.